I was unaware there were people who challenged - still - the notion of a heliocentric system.

Now this raises some questions I'd like to ask:

1) Do you believe in heliocentricity?
2) Is there sufficient evidence to contradict heliocentricity or geocentrism (whichever you don't believe in)?

Finally, I'd like to ask this:

Is something like this grounds to revoke or withhold a degree for?

That is, a person is supposed to have a general degree (BA, BGS, whatever). Is this grounds to say "well, it seems you didn't really learn anything" so you cannot have your diploma?

I guess what I'm having a hard time saying is when do you draw the line at real education and nonsense?

banyon

04-17-2008, 06:34 PM

Physics of a Flat Earth
the Earth as being a disk with a diameter of about 24,900 miles (40,000 km) and a circumference of 78,225 miles (126,000 km). The sun and moon are both discs about 32 miles (52 km) in diameter (although some sources say that the sun and moon are spheres) and are about 3,000 miles (4800 km) above the Earth, and the stars about 100 miles (160 km) above the sun and moon.

The Flat Earth Society also maintains that the Earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 9.8 m/sē, thereby simulating gravity. [5] This upward momentum is caused by the "Universal Accelerator", a vague term used by the Society to describe a force that originated at the Big Bang and caused the Earth to speed upwards. Gravity cannot exist on a flat Earth since the disc shape would eventually collapse on itself. However in a few Flat Earth models, other planetary bodies such as the moon and the sun are alleged to have gravitational pulls, causing the gravitational force on an object to decrease as it increases in altitude. This also allows spacecraft to "orbit".

The planetary bodies above the Earth revolve above it, thereby causing sunrise and sunset to occur. As the sun moves farther away, it shrinks until it is no longer able to be seen. The same phenomenon occurs with the stars to cause their movement.

The society's Flat Earth hypothesis states that as a ship moves farther away, the chance of a wave being in front of the ship relative to a viewer's perspective on shore increases. Therefore, because the ship moves farther away and becomes smaller, a wave is able to obscure a larger portion of the hull until the ship is no longer visible. Other factors that also contribute to this effect are atmospheric distortion and human eyesight. In the Second century the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy advanced many arguments for the sphericity of the Earth. Among them was the observation that when sailing towards mountains, they seem to rise from the sea, indicating that they were hidden by the curved surface of the sea. It would need a Megatsunami to obscure a mountain.

A diagram depicting Flat Earth Seasons.The exact explanation for lunar eclipses in the Flat Earth theory is vague, however. Two commonly accepted theories are Shadow Object Theory (that an object undiscovered and undetectable by science obscures the moon causing moon phases and lunar eclipses) and Reflection Theory (the sun's light reflects off the Earth and reflects back to the moon, with some areas of the Earth being less reflective than others, thus producing shadows).

Tides are caused by a slight tilting of the Earth, causing water to "slosh" back and forth. The tilt is very small, and very unlikely to be noticed.

As the sun orbits over the Earth, the Flat Earth theory maintains that the sun's orbit radius changes, causing it to be directly overhead different locations at different times of the year. There is no explanation of the mechanism that causes this.

Adept Havelock

04-17-2008, 07:23 PM

I suppose they also insist on "Teaching The Controversy". :p

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 07:38 PM

I suppose they also insist on "Teaching The Controversy". :p

Actually, the guy I was talking with sort of did. Said it was, in theory, possible and that and I quote "lots of very smart people" believe it.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 10:03 PM

Someone just told me that NewScientist (the magazine and website) is a radical source that has no merit.
ROFL

Taco John

04-17-2008, 10:05 PM

I guess what I'm having a hard time saying is when do you draw the line at real education and nonsense?

I guess that depends on what you consider a real education is.

Adept Havelock

04-17-2008, 10:09 PM

I guess that depends on what you consider a real education is.

IMO, distinguishing between Science and non-falsifiable pseudo-science seems like a good place to start. :D

Actually, the guy I was talking with sort of did. Said it was, in theory, possible and that and I quote "lots of very smart people" believe it.
Astronomy and manned space exploration having proved otherwise doesn't register with the crackpots.
Someone just told me that NewScientist (the magazine and website) is a radical source that has no merit.
ROFL

A reluctance to submit to peer review (a cornerstone of the Scientific Method) is usually a good indicator.

What's next? Someone will probably call for teaching Aristotle's theory of Celestial Spheres as an alternative theory of cosmology. :rolleyes:

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 10:16 PM

IMO, distinguishing between Science and non-falsifiable pseudo-science seems like a good place to start. :D

Astronomy and manned space exploration having proved otherwise doesn't register with the crackpots.

A reluctance to submit to peer review (a cornerstone of the Scientific Method) is usually a good indicator. :thumb:

The problem is you can't fight this. People just remain that way. And the circle perpetuates itself. It's scary. The U.S. is doomed scientifically.

'Hamas' Jenkins

04-17-2008, 10:18 PM

The problem is you can't fight this. People just remain that way. And the circle perpetuates itself. It's scary. The U.S. is doomed scientifically.

It's not a circle or a sphere, jackass. It's a flat plane :harumph:

Adept Havelock

04-17-2008, 10:18 PM

The problem is you can't fight this. People just remain that way. And the circle perpetuates itself. It's scary. The U.S. is doomed scientifically.

Only if you let the crackpot fringe dominate the debate.

Don't get angry at them. Generally, they aren't worth it. Laughter is much more appropriate and effective, IMO. I'll admit I have trouble remembering that sometimes.

It's not a circle or a sphere, jackass. It's a flat plane :harumph:

LMAO

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 10:23 PM

Only if you let the crackpot fringe dominate the debate.

Don't get angry at them. Generally, they aren't worth it. Laughter is much more appropriate and effective, IMO. I'll admit I have trouble remembering that sometimes.

LMAO

I do have trouble getting frustrated and then getting angry that they could be this stupid. ;)

But even if you settle for laughter, it doesn't break the circle. You just have to wait for the few people every year who break out of ignorance.

tiptap

04-17-2008, 10:24 PM

When I was a kid, that would have been in the 50's, late at night there were shows on TV with inflammatory theories ranging from flat earth to Christ resurrection conspiracies. The live crowds were always boisterous and looking to go on the attack. This isn't new. It use to be ignored and would die a quick death because the ratings were so low when viewing was left to just 3 or 4 networks. But with so many outlets now, even small but constant viewed ideas and views can maintain a presence.

This is how I got my start as a kid evaluating claims. Late night in the summers.

It

Taco John

04-17-2008, 10:32 PM

I do have trouble getting frustrated and then getting angry that they could be this stupid. ;)

But even if you settle for laughter, it doesn't break the circle. You just have to wait for the few people every year who break out of ignorance.

What I don't understand is why do you care? Why does it matter to you if someone believes something that you don't?

I definitely believe the sun is the center of the solar system, but if someone believed otherwise, it wouldn't matter to me. What they believe doesn't change a thing about what I believe.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 10:40 PM

What I don't understand is why do you care? Why does it matter to you if someone believes something that you don't?

Because it retards the country and society's progress. I want to defeat aging. I want to see the space frontier. I want things like that. But with the current thinking and ignorance of the masses, it won't happen.

So I try my hardest to inform. And stay informed. Is that bad?

I definitely believe the sun is the center of the solar system, but if someone believed otherwise, it wouldn't matter to me. What they believe doesn't change a thing about what I believe.

And this is where I see a massive problem. With this thinking, anything goes. Anything and everything is allowed. There should be no disagreement. No line to draw between intelligence and retardation. Between fantasy and reality.

Live and let live worked really well with religions of old. You know, burning at the stake, killing, etc etc. Live and let live really cannot be tolerated anymore. Hell, tolerance is getting to a point where it can't really hold up to certain things like science. Where is the line in which tolerance isn't needed and where someone is just flat wrong?

Adept Havelock

04-17-2008, 10:57 PM

What I don't understand is why do you care? Why does it matter to you if someone believes something that you don't?

I definitely believe the sun is the center of the solar system, but if someone believed otherwise, it wouldn't matter to me. What they believe doesn't change a thing about what I believe.

:spock:

Why should it matter to you if people hold Socialist positions and act on those beliefs?

Right...ultimately it does affect you. Eventually those people are affecting your pocketbook.

Same thing when pseudo-science is passed off as Science. If pseudo-science is granted equal stature with Science in the public square, eventually it has a negative effect on our ability to innovate, do research, how we are perceived in the international scientific community, etc. That eventually harms our economic well being. Are you going to claim that doesn't affect you?

Those negative effects may not manifest in the same way, but to deny they exist lies somewhere between folly and absurdity.

BTW- There's nothing wrong with the competition of ideas in Science, as long as they are all subject to the same playing field of the Scientific Method. Much as you wish to disparage that Scientific Method as mere "dogma", it's not. Science without the Method is Football without Rules. Sure, it might be entertaining, but it's chaos and little to nothing positive will come of it.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:00 PM

Because it retards the country and society's progress.

Since when has competition of ideas retarded progress? If anything, competition has enhanced the progress of society.

I want to defeat aging. I want to see the space frontier. I want things like that. But with the current thinking and ignorance of the masses, it won't happen.

Which of the flat-earthers do you believe is keeping us from the space frontier? Which creationist is keeping science from discovering a cure for cancer? I don't understand the concern here.

So I try my hardest to inform. And stay informed. Is that bad?

I'm not here to say it's bad. I'm just here to say that competition of ideas is good, no matter how grounded you believe your ideas are in comparison to someone else's. And what if you're wrong about a particular idea, and the idea you've ostracized is right? In the old days, they called it heresy. Now days, the same sort of religious ostracization happens in the name of science. Just look at global warming. It's practically become a religion.

And this is where I see a massive problem. With this thinking, anything goes. Anything and everything is allowed. There should be no disagreement. No line to draw between intelligence and retardation. Between fantasy and reality.

Live and let live worked really well with religions of old. You know, burning at the stake, killing, etc etc. Live and let live really cannot be tolerated anymore. Hell, tolerance is getting to a point where it can't really hold up to certain things like science. Where is the line in which tolerance isn't needed and where someone is just flat wrong?

You sound like the religions of old. Back then, it was the institutionalization of religion that caused this kind of thinking... "You must believe what our institution believes or you are a heretic." That kind of pressure never changes minds. "My way or the highway" propositions will generally end in entrenchment - leading to the opposite of your stated desires.

banyon

04-17-2008, 11:10 PM

I'm not here to say it's bad. I'm just here to say that competition of ideas is good, no matter how grounded you believe your ideas are in comparison to someone else's. And what if you're wrong about a particular idea, and the idea you've ostracized is right? In the old days, they called it heresy. Now days, the same sort of religious ostracization happens in the name of science. Just look at global warming. It's practically become a religion.

No. Like many of your positions, it's not as black and white as you'd prefer. Some ideas really are bad and deserving of scorn. Why don't we teach the idea that slavery is the white man's burden anymore in high school or middle school? It was a point of view, but over the years, it didn't make any sense to teach it. Cultural relativism never works.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:16 PM

Why should it matter to you if people hold Socialist positions and act on those beliefs?

Because those beliefs end up getting forced on me "for the good of society." I have absolutely no problem with people holding socialist beliefs, until they use the United States government to force those beliefs on me.

Right...ultimately it does affect you.

Same thing when pseudo-science is passed off as Science. The negative effects may not manifest in the same way, but to deny there is any negative effect is absurd.[/QUOTE]

No, you're wrong. It doesn't affect me in the least until those beliefs get institutionalized through the means of government. A flat earther can believe in a flat earth, and it won't affect my belief in a round earth in the least until the government institutionalizes it and forces it on people.

You scoff at "teach the controversey," but what you fail to see is that by doing so, what you are really doing is teaching students how to evaluate claims. Instead, you want to teach them rote facts and demand fealty to those facts. Are they really gaining an "education" that way? I personally would say no. My idea of an education is teaching a person *how* to think, not teaching them *what* to think.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:19 PM

No. Like many of your positions, it's not as black and white as you'd prefer.

Black and white? :rolleyes:

The whole point of my argument here is that there is plenty of gray area. You're the one who is making a black-white argument here:

Some ideas really are bad and deserving of scorn.

I know. Like socialism.

Why don't we teach the idea that slavery is the white man's burden anymore in high school or middle school? It was a point of view, but over the years, it didn't make any sense to teach it. Cultural relativism never works.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make with this one. Hell, I didn't even know that they ever taught that Slavery was the white man's burden. Apparently that one didn't make it in the text books of small town Idaho.

banyon

04-17-2008, 11:23 PM

Black and white? :rolleyes:

The whole point of my argument here is that there is plenty of gray area. You're the one who is making a black-white argument here:

I know. Like socialism.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make with this one. Hell, I didn't even know that they ever taught that Slavery was the white man's burden. Apparently that one didn't make it in the text books of small town Idaho.

You're arguing for the competition of ideas. My post clearly outlines some ideas that had no business being used seriously. Similarly, these ideas are useless.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:30 PM

You're arguing for the competition of ideas. My post clearly outlines some ideas that had no business being used seriously. Similarly, these ideas are useless.

These ideas are useless so lets force our ideas on them instead? I guess it's the way of the liberal. We know what's right, and instead of letting you pleabs decide for yourselves, we're going to decide for you. In the old days, knowledge came from an infallible pope. These days, it comes from "infallible" science. I'm all in favor of science, don't get me wrong. But just like it was men writing the Bible, it is also men pulling the levers of science. Error can, and does happen.

I favor a market approach to ideas: you let the market decide which ideas get adopted, and which ones fail. Naturally, the best ideas will win out in the end.

I guess I don't see what the point of forcing the issue gains anyone. It doesn't make anyone smarter. In fact, just the opposite. It just turns people into unstimulated, bored drones.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:31 PM

Since when has competition of ideas retarded progress? If anything, competition has enhanced the progress of society.

Competition of ideas only helps if they're valid ideas. I don't think you'd argue that 2+2=5 vs 2+2=4 is a competition of ideas.

Which of the flat-earthers do you believe is keeping us from the space frontier? Which creationist is keeping science from discovering a cure for cancer? I don't understand the concern here.

It's the general idea of science. If people don't see scientific values, they don't fund it. Moreover, ignorance just breeds more ignorance. Eventually, there won't be as many, if any, breakthroughs. I don't see how you can shrug off the fight that's been raging about the "debate". Moreover, I don't see how you don't view this as problematic or at the very least, distracting.

I'm not here to say it's bad. I'm just here to say that competition of ideas is good, no matter how grounded you believe your ideas are in comparison to someone else's. And what if you're wrong about a particular idea, and the idea you've ostracized is right? In the old days, they called it heresy. Now days, the same sort of religious ostracization happens in the name of science. Just look at global warming. It's practically become a religion.

I am very open to the fact I'm wrong. Name something you think is debatable that I have stated I align myself with. Evolution? Heliocentricity?

Global warming practically became a religion because we had Al Gore presenting it. He brings in the POLITICAL into the SCIENTIFIC. That was why it was viewed as a religion. That and the fact that people don't understand there is not debate. Or that the debate was never if it was warming but rather if humans caused the warming.

You sound like the religions of old. Back then, it was the institutionalization of religion that caused this kind of thinking... "You must believe what our institution believes or you are a heretic." That kind of pressure never changes minds. "My way or the highway" propositions will generally end in entrenchment - leading to the opposite of your stated desires.

There's a GIANT hole in your thinking here. I am advocating the fact that there is too much tolerance. At some point someone has to be wrong. Also, religions rarely admit they are wrong. Science does it all the time. They constantly change their opinions, hypotheses, etc.

It's a poor example and it's pretty shallow.

Adept Havelock

04-17-2008, 11:36 PM

Because those beliefs end up getting forced on me "for the good of society." I have absolutely no problem with people holding socialist beliefs, until they use the United States government to force those beliefs on me.

Somehow I knew you would have no trouble comprehending that part of the point, and yet be unable to lend that same critical thinking to the follow-up. :D

No, you're wrong. It doesn't affect me in the least until those beliefs get institutionalized through the means of government. A flat earther can believe in a flat earth, and it won't affect my belief in a round earth in the least until the government institutionalizes it and forces it on people.
It's not just Flat-Earth, but a whole range of pseudo-sciences these days, including your precious, unfalsifiable, ID. Are you going to pretend that folks aren't pushing the government to force that pseudo-science on people in Science class?

Furthermore, if you can't recognize the effect such nonsense has on how we are perceived in the Global Scientific Community, the opportunities for collaboration and research, the economic opportunities that might result, lost because of that perception...:banghead:

You scoff at "teach the controversy," but what you fail to see is that by doing so, what you are really doing is teaching students how to evaluate claims.
I don't fail to see it, that's exactly what I'm talking about. They are taught to recognize pseudo-science and it's many hucksters, and evaluate those claims compared to claims made and proved or not proved according to the Scientific Method. They can then assess on their own that the latter has immense value to the pursuit of Science, but the former little to nothing at all.

Instead, you want to teach them rote facts and demand fealty to those facts. Are they really gaining an "education" that way? I personally would say no. My idea of an education is teaching a person *how* to think, not teaching them *what* to think.

Teach rote facts? No. Not even close. I want them to seek the answers on their own. To investigate, test, and research their own answers. I'm simply insisting the same rules (Scientific Method/Peer Review/Falsifiability/ETC.) apply to everyone who wishes to claim their particular crackpot theory as "Science".

Again, to use your pet theory ID. ID shows up and sees a bunch of other kids playing a game (Science). However, due to the way he's built, he's fundamentally unable to play by the same rules(Scientific Method). Thus, he claims the rules aren't fair, and they should have to change to accommodate him instead of finding another game he's more suited for (Philosophy).

As I said last time this came up, that might be OK for a kids game, but it simply doesn't work for Science. Whine about it being "Dogma" all you want, but if you remove that "Dogma", it's not Science anymore. As the Method has served humanity quite well by almost any empirical observation, I see no reason to throw out all that progress to accommodate a crackpot theory that doesn't even deign to respect the rules of the game. ;)

Yes, I mock "teach the controversy" because the "controversy" is almost always a case of apples and oranges, as you were shown by many posters the last time you brought up ID as "Science" though it's clearly unfalsifiable and thus outside the bounds of Science.

Eventually, that leads to a lack of Science education, which in turn harms our ability to innovate, to create, and to work as peers with the rest of the Scientific Community. If you don't believe that has a negative effect on you, your community, your economy, etc. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:37 PM

Because those beliefs end up getting forced on me "for the good of society." I have absolutely no problem with people holding socialist beliefs, until they use the United States government to force those beliefs on me.

No, you're wrong. It doesn't affect me in the least until those beliefs get institutionalized through the means of government. A flat earther can believe in a flat earth, and it won't affect my belief in a round earth in the least until the government institutionalizes it and forces it on people.

Right.....that's why there's plenty of school districts are implementing things that make creationism science. Oklahoma was going to pass a bill that made it mandatory for teachers to accept answers to scientific questions based on religion. How is that not forcing things on people?

You scoff at "teach the controversey," but what you fail to see is that by doing so, what you are really doing is teaching students how to evaluate claims. Instead, you want to teach them rote facts and demand fealty to those facts. Are they really gaining an "education" that way? I personally would say no. My idea of an education is teaching a person *how* to think, not teaching them *what* to think.

Right.... So there's no point to learning facts? Why not question everything? The sky is actually green. Society and school just tells us it's blue. 2+2=5. Mathematics teachers are just pushing rote facts.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:38 PM

I know. Like socialism.

You just proved your a hypocrite. Thank you.

Teach the controversy, unless it's socialism. Then it's bad because it might actually take hold and then I'll be affected.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:43 PM

These ideas are useless so lets force our ideas on them instead? I guess it's the way of the liberal. We know what's right, and instead of letting you pleabs decide for yourselves, we're going to decide for you. In the old days, knowledge came from an infallible pope. These days, it comes from "infallible" science. I'm all in favor of science, don't get me wrong. But just like it was men writing the Bible, it is also men pulling the levers of science. Error can, and does happen.

Wow, you fail to understand science, apparently. Science is all about trial and ERROR. Errors happen all the time. Perfectly normal. In fact, if there weren't any errors, I don't think science would be operating normally.

I favor a market approach to ideas: you let the market decide which ideas get adopted, and which ones fail. Naturally, the best ideas will win out in the end.

Unfortunately, you defeat your own argument against science that you made above right here. You have defined the Scientific Method. However, to apply to the marketplace of ideas, you have to play by the rules. Flat-earthers and creationists don't.

And unfortunately the best ideas don't always win out. How can you explain that the majority of Americans don't believe in Evolution? Or similar questions.

I guess I don't see what the point of forcing the issue gains anyone. It doesn't make anyone smarter. In fact, just the opposite. It just turns people into unstimulated, bored drones.

ROFL

And I thought of you as pretty intelligent. How are the masses - those uninformed about evolution, those thinking fossils were planted here, those saying New Scientist isn't a credible source - not already unstimulated, bored drones?

Pressing the issue is exactly what people need. How can you say it's not?

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:45 PM

Somehow I knew you would have no trouble comprehending that part of the point, and yet be unable to lend that same critical thinking to the follow-up. :D

It's not just Flat-Earth, but a whole range of pseudo-sciences these days, including your precious, unfalsifiable, ID. Are you going to pretend that folks aren't pushing the government to force that pseudo-science on people?

Furthermore, if you can't recognize the effect such nonsense has on how we are perceived in the Global Scientific Community, the opportunities for collaboration and research, the economic opportunities that might result, lost because of that perception...:banghead:

I don't fail to see it, that's exactly what I'm talking about. They are taught to recognize pseudo-science and it's many hucksters, and evaluate those claims compared to claims made and proved or not proved according to the Scientific Method. They can then assess on their own that the latter has immense value to the pursuit of Science, but the former little to nothing at all.

Teach rote facts? No. Not even close. I want them to seek the answers on their own. To investigate, test, and research their own answers. I'm simply insisting the same rules (Scientific Method/Peer Review/Falsifiability/ETC.) apply to everyone who wishes to claim their particular crackpot theory as "Science".

Yes, I mock "teach the controversy" because the "controversy" is almost always a case of apples and oranges, as you were shown by many posters the last time you brought up ID as "Science" though it's clearly unfalsifiable and thus outside the bounds of Science.

Eventually, that leads to a lack of Science education, which in turn harms our ability to innovate, to create, and to work as peers with the rest of the Scientific Community. If you don't believe that has a negative effect on you, your community, your economy, etc. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Way better than my attempt. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

jAZ

04-17-2008, 11:49 PM

You round-earth elitists.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:49 PM

It's a poor example and it's pretty shallow.

I don't believe so. But I'd bet that you'd be willing to argue until the cow come home to try and force me to believe that it is.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:54 PM

And I thought of you as pretty intelligent. How are the masses - those uninformed about evolution, those thinking fossils were planted here, those saying New Scientist isn't a credible source - not already unstimulated, bored drones?

They're the other side of the coin that I'm talking about.

When people are taught *what* to think, and not *how* to think, they lose the opportunity for the type of brain wiring that enables them to be critical thinkers. I'm not in favor of teaching people *what* to think. I'm in favor of teaching them *how* to think, and then letting the market place do its thing.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:54 PM

Unfortunately, you defeat your own argument against science that you made above right here.

I haven't made an argument against science. My argument is against the infallibility of men.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:55 PM

They're the other side of the coin that I'm talking about.

When people are taught *what* to think, and not *how* to think, they lose the opportunity for the type of brain wiring that enables them to be critical thinkers. I'm not in favor of teaching people *what* to think. I'm in favor of teaching them *how* to think, and then letting the market place do its thing.

So nothing is to be taken as fact?

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:56 PM

I haven't made an argument against science. My argument is against the infallibility of men.

Yet no one has claimed that men are infallible. I don't even get why you have mentioned it.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:57 PM

Right.....that's why there's plenty of school districts are implementing things that make creationism science.

Of course they are. It's a natural reaction to a publically funded education system. These people are paying taxes, and want their competing views taught in the schools that they are funding.

Taco John

04-17-2008, 11:57 PM

So nothing is to be taken as fact?

This is going right over your head.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:57 PM

Of course they are. It's a natural reaction to a publically funded education system. These people are paying taxes, and want their competing views taught in the schools that they are funding.

But they aren't competing. Apples don't compete with oranges.

irishjayhawk

04-17-2008, 11:59 PM

This is going right over your head.

No, you're making no sense in your arguments.

Arguing about the infallibility of men, when no one has even questioned it.
People should think for themselves, unless they're socialists.
Arguing about the "market place" taking over when there's already an established game: Scientific Method, Mathematical proofs, Language dictionaries, etc.
Arguing that allowing any set of ideas to compete is a good thing when it clearly cuts ties with other countries. Like what AH said.

Adept Havelock

04-18-2008, 12:00 AM

I haven't made an argument against science.

Actually, you were when you went off on your tangent about how Science (and by extension the Scientific Method) are no different than the intolerant dogmas of ancient religions.
I
My argument is against the infallibility of men.

Well, if someone comes along and makes that claim, I'll be sure to notify you if you're not around. ;)

Way better than my attempt. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

Thank you kindly. It's likely just because I've been dealing with this longer. Back to the Van Daniken folks, the Hollow Earth/MIB nutters, etc. That, and I don't have the emotional investment you appear to have, for better or worse.

It's been fun, but the old lady just tapped me. I'm off, and good night to all.

Taco John

04-18-2008, 12:21 AM

Arguing about the infallibility of men, when no one has even questioned it.

Then why would you make the argument that someone who believes other than you do should not be given a degree? You're making the case that your point of view is infallible.

People should think for themselves, unless they're socialists.

Socialists don't think for themselves. They believe that they should think for other people. Ask anyone who advocates unions for Walmart employees. They'll tell you "these Walmart employees are voting against their own best interests." Clearly, these socialists believe that they know what these people's own best interests are. You hear this line of argument all the time from socialist leaning types.

Arguing about the "market place" taking over when there's already an established game: Scientific Method, Mathematical proofs, Language dictionaries, etc.

Exactly. So what are you afraid of?

Arguing that allowing any set of ideas to compete is a good thing when it clearly cuts ties with other countries.

Like I said: who gets to decide?

patteeu

04-18-2008, 06:25 AM

Someone appears to be under the misconception that "heliocentrism" is a fact in the same vein as "2+2=4".

Until you select a frame of reference you can't say that the earth revolves around the sun or that the sun revolves around the earth. Picking that frame of reference is somewhat arbitrary.

I say this without really understanding what Guy Consolmagno's specific position is, but in general, there's no reason why you couldn't view celestial dynamics from an earth-centered perspective. The equations might get slightly messier, but it's no less right than an alternative like heliocentrism.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2a9vcso.jpg

BucEyedPea

04-18-2008, 07:08 AM

Someone appears to be under the misconception that "heliocentrism" is a fact in the same vein as "2+2=4".

Until you select a frame of reference you can't say that the earth revolves around the sun or that the sun revolves around the earth. Picking that frame of reference is somewhat arbitrary.

I say this without really understanding what Guy Consolmagno's specific position is, but in general, there's no reason why you couldn't view celestial dynamics from an earth-centered perspective. The equations might get slightly messier, but it's no less right than an alternative like heliocentrism.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2a9vcso.jpg

Well that example looks like "God is watching us."

I think you're just playing into Irish's frame of reference of anti-religion because Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, is an American research astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory. He's a Jesuit and a scientist.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 07:30 AM

Well that example looks like "God is watching us."

I think you're just playing into Irish's frame of reference of anti-religion because Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, is an American research astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory. He's a Jesuit and a scientist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "playing into Irish's frame of reference of anti-religion".

I don't know what "God is watching us" is either.

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 08:49 AM

Then why would you make the argument that someone who believes other than you do should not be given a degree? You're making the case that your point of view is infallible.

No, I ASKED at what point does intellect and nonsense divide?

Same thing holds if someone thought 2+2=5 and seriously argued it. Do we award him a degree when he has failed at math so egregiously?

Socialists don't think for themselves. They believe that they should think for other people. Ask anyone who advocates unions for Walmart employees. They'll tell you "these Walmart employees are voting against their own best interests." Clearly, these socialists believe that they know what these people's own best interests are. You hear this line of argument all the time from socialist leaning types.

Thank you for proving my point. You're all for the evaluation of ideas until someone evaluates the ideas and settles on socialism. Do you not see your own hypocrisy?

Exactly. So what are you afraid of?

They aren't playing by the damn rules. They aren't letting the market place do it's think. They are trying to slip their ideas that don't meet the rules of the marketplace into the marketplace.

Like I said: who gets to decide?

You are really dense. The MARKETPLACE decides. The rules. The mathematics proofs. The Scientific method. People can't just postulate anything and let it fly. Otherwise, we wouldn't get anywhere. Ideas have to have some merit. Yet in this day and age there are lots of ideas that have no merit because they don't play by the rules. You seem to be just fine letting imagination and reality mix with no restraint for learning. That is, you would like to have an "anything goes" approach rather than forcing people to play by the rules.

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 08:51 AM

Well that example looks like "God is watching us."

I think you're just playing into Irish's frame of reference of anti-religion because Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, is an American research astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory. He's a Jesuit and a scientist.

I am very aware that there are religious scientists. Do I think they have a slight conflict of interest sometimes? Yes. Do I think we should discard any scientist who isn't an atheist? No.

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 08:52 AM

Someone appears to be under the misconception that "heliocentrism" is a fact in the same vein as "2+2=4".

Until you select a frame of reference you can't say that the earth revolves around the sun or that the sun revolves around the earth. Picking that frame of reference is somewhat arbitrary.

I say this without really understanding what Guy Consolmagno's specific position is, but in general, there's no reason why you couldn't view celestial dynamics from an earth-centered perspective. The equations might get slightly messier, but it's no less right than an alternative like heliocentrism.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2a9vcso.jpg

Other than space exploration that has proven one way....

And, I would also contend that you could select a frame of reference for 2+2=5. So I don't really think it's a good argument to say they aren't from the same vein.

tiptap

04-18-2008, 08:57 AM

Someone appears to be under the misconception that "heliocentrism" is a fact in the same vein as "2+2=4".

Until you select a frame of reference you can't say that the earth revolves around the sun or that the sun revolves around the earth. Picking that frame of reference is somewhat arbitrary.

I say this without really understanding what Guy Consolmagno's specific position is, but in general, there's no reason why you couldn't view celestial dynamics from an earth-centered perspective. The equations might get slightly messier, but it's no less right than an alternative like heliocentrism.

http://i26.tinypic.com/2a9vcso.jpg

There is a big difference between the Frame of Reference and the Geometry that the Space demonstrates. The Geometry of the Space makes somethings impossible. For example, if the earth was flat, that would insist upon a Euclidean Space. As such the sum of the angles of a triangle could not exceed 180 degrees. And yet if you have two people separated from each other one quarter of the way around the earth on the equator and both turn North at a 90 degree angle both will arrive at the North Pole at a 90 degree angle and that sums to 270 degrees. Quite correct for a sphere surface but impossible for a flat circle. So your argument is fallacy. The logic can differentiate between what is possible and what is not. The system has to be internally consistent to be considered valid. The space is not arbitrary. The Frame of Reference is merely the measuring tool and it can be arbitrary but doesn't change the Space.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 09:01 AM

Other than space exploration that has proven one way....

And, I would also contend that you could select a frame of reference for 2+2=5. So I don't really think it's a good argument to say they aren't from the same vein.

Nonsense. Space exploration hasn't "proven one way" at all.

And unless you are suggesting that the "2" and the "5" are empty symbols that can be defined to mean the concept of "2" and "4" respectively, they are not "from the same vein". The mathematical concept is a fact in a way that heliocentrism is not. The symbolic depiction of that truth is flexible, but if this is what you base your analogy upon, you give up the entire argument that there is some inherent truth in heliocentrism.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 09:03 AM

There is a big difference between the Frame of Reference and the Geometry that the Space demonstrates. The Geometry of the Space makes somethings impossible. For example, if the earth was flat, that would insist upon a Euclidean Space. As such the sum of the angles of a triangle could not exceed 180 degrees. And yet if you have two people separated from each other one quarter of the way around the earth on the equator and both turn North at a 90 degree angle both will arrive at the North Pole at a 90 degree angle and that sums to 270 degrees. Quite correct for a sphere surface but impossible for a flat circle. So your argument is fallacy. The logic can differentiate between what is possible and what is not.

Don't change the subject. I'm not talking about a flat earth. The map I included was just an illustration of how the choice of a frame of reference can change the way two different people see the same thing.

tiptap

04-18-2008, 09:08 AM

All frames of References can be shifted without affecting the space. And it is the science, the space that is in discussion. As usual, conservatives would rather talk about the measuring tool (and choose one to their liking) rather than deal with the reality.

banyon

04-18-2008, 09:17 AM

Nonsense. Space exploration hasn't "proven one way" at all.

And unless you are suggesting that the "2" and the "5" are empty symbols that can be defined to mean the concept of "2" and "4" respectively, they are not "from the same vein". The mathematical concept is a fact in a way that heliocentrism is not. The symbolic depiction of that truth is flexible, but if this is what you base your analogy upon, you give up the entire argument that there is some inherent truth in heliocentrism.

Are you just making the point that one is deductively known and the other is inductively known?

That much is indisputable.

But space exploration has proven that the earth is not flat, as much as something can be proven inductively.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 09:24 AM

All frames of References can be shifted without affecting the space. And it is the science, the space that is in discussion. As usual, conservatives would rather talk about the measuring tool (and choose one to their liking) rather than deal with the reality.

What are you talking about? It's not apparent to me that you're making any more sense than Irish. Here's a sample from the OP article about what is actually "in discussion":

Interviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

At this point, the interviewer interrupted and turned to Guy Consolomagno.

Interviewer: "Bro Consolmagno, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?"

Consolmagno: "Well, let's put it this way. It's easier to make calculations with the earth going around the sun."

At this point I could tell the intereviewer sensed that the whole thing was exploding in his face. So he tried to pin Consolmagno down to denying geocentrism.

Interviewer: "But Bro Consolmagno, we are talking here about reality. Regardless of whether the math works easier, is it true or not that the sun goes around the earth?"

Consolmagno: "Well, like I said, it's easier to make calculations with the earth going around the sun."

Clearly, we are talking about alternative frames of reference for the same reality here. It's simply not any more correct to say that the Earth revolves around the sun than it is to say that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The Interviewer doesn't get it. Irish doesn't get it. Don't tell me that you don't get it either.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 09:30 AM

Are you just making the point that one is deductively known and the other is inductively known?

That much is indisputable.

But space exploration has proven that the earth is not flat, as much as something can be proven inductively.

Heliocentrism doesn't have anything to do with the earth being flat. I just looked it up to be sure that I wasn't missing something since you're the second person relating my post to flat earth. I haven't intentionally commented on the flat earth red herring that someone introduced to this thread. If I accidentally did so, let me clarify here that my comments are all based on the OP and Irish's misguided belief that heliocentrism > geocentrism.

stevieray

04-18-2008, 09:35 AM

the earth isn't even a sphere..or a perfect circle....

In fact, Everest might be highest from Sea level, but Chimborazo in Equador is the highest point on Earth.

Adept Havelock

04-18-2008, 09:42 AM

It's simply not any more correct to say that the Earth revolves around the sun than it is to say that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The Interviewer doesn't get it. Irish doesn't get it. Don't tell me that you don't get it either.

Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and all but a minuscule percentage of the Scientific Community would disagree. Of course one is correct (if you read correct as a synonym for "true" or "accurate", as most do) and one is not. To pretend otherwise is mere sophistry, IMO. Granted, that's your forte, having been trained in the dark arts.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 09:50 AM

Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and all but a minuscule percentage of the Scientific Community would disagree. Of course one is correct and one is not. To pretend otherwise is mere sophistry, IMO. Granted, that's your forte, having been trained in the dark arts.

From the OP article, I've got "Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, [and] Bruno Bertotti" on my side. And I don't think you are accurately speaking for "all but a minuscule percentage of the Scientific Community" either.

I didn't really need any of those scientific stiffs to confirm my position, but it might help you understand that you're wrong. It's not sophistry, it's simply reality. The choice of a center point is just that; a choice.

Adept Havelock

04-18-2008, 10:01 AM

From the OP article, I've got "Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, [and] Bruno Bertotti" on my side. And I don't think you are accurately speaking for "all but a minuscule percentage of the Scientific Community" either.

I didn't really need any of those scientific stiffs to confirm my position, but it might help you understand that you're wrong. It's not sophistry, it's simply reality. The choice of a center point is just that; a choice.

You may be willing to take the gentleman at his word when it comes to Einsteins support, but that's a gross distortion of Mr. Einstien's invariance theory, nothing more. I notice he claims Einstein and Mach support this thinking, but he offers nothing to support that, beyond hearsay. I suppose I'm a bit more skeptical than you when it comes to fringe and pseudo-science.

However, if you wish to cast your lot with Modern Geocentrists (primarily YEC), and sophists, go right ahead.

Besides, the choice of a center point does not change the reality that even with the Earth as that "center point", the mathematics prove otherwise. :shrug:

I'll leave this to tiptap. He's far more qualified to discuss this than I.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 10:14 AM

You may be willing to take the gentleman at his word when it comes to Einsteins support, but that's a gross distortion of Mr. Einstien's invariance theory, nothing more. I notice he claims Einstein and Mach support this thinking, but he offers nothing to support that, beyond hearsay. I suppose I'm a bit more skeptical than you when it comes to fringe and pseudo-science.

However, if you wish to cast your lot with Modern Geocentrists (primarily YEC), and sophists, go right ahead.

I like you, Adept, so I'm going to make an effort to help you understand this. You've heard of binary stars right? Here's a diagram of the relationship between a hypothetical pair of such stars. Which star is revolving around the other one?

We tend to stick with the convention of saying that the larger of two bodies that revolve around each other is the "center" for the system, but from the diagram you can see that as the two bodies become roughly equal in size the illusion that one is the center and the other is a satellite is shattered. The truth is that they revolve around each other and you could set your math up using either of the two bodies as the center. The fact that we have other planets dancing with our Sun doesn't change anything. The other planets are moving around the Earth just as much as they are moving around the Sun, it's just that the Sun's greater gravitational effect makes their relative motion look simpler from the point of view of the sun than it does from the point of view of the Earth. In other words, if you pick the Sun as the center, planets move in an elipse, whereas if you pick the Earth as the center, the planets move in some kind of weird flight path that is an elipse distorted by the huge gravitational attraction to the Sun as the Sun moves in it's elipse around the Earth-center.

Adept Havelock

04-18-2008, 10:22 AM

I like you, Adept, so I'm going to make an effort to help you understand this. You've heard of binary stars right? Here's a diagram of the relationship between a hypothetical pair of such stars. Which star is revolving around the other one?

We tend to stick with the convention of saying that the larger of two bodies that revolve around each other is the "center" for the system, but from the diagram you can see that as the two bodies become roughly equal in size the illusion that one is the center and the other is a satellite is shattered. The truth is that they revolve around each other and you could set your math up using either of the two bodies as the center. The fact that we have other planets dancing with our Sun doesn't change anything. The other planets are moving around the Earth just as much as they are moving around the Sun, it's just that the Sun's greater gravitational effect makes their relative motion look simpler from the point of view of the sun than it does from the point of view of the Earth. In other words, if you pick the Sun as the center, planets move in an elipse, whereas if you pick the Earth as the center, the planets move in some kind of weird flight path that is an elipse distorted by the huge gravitational attraction to the Sun's elipse.

I do understand that, and appreciate the time taken.

However, I'll stick with Occam's Razor, which in this case the math suggests Heliocentrism is "correct".

I'm not sure about the authors ranting about geocentricism somehow validating ID, as ID is still based on an unfalsifiable idea. Then again, what else can one expect from a proponent of psuedo-science? :shrug:

Taco John

04-18-2008, 10:25 AM

No, I ASKED at what point does intellect and nonsense divide?

Same thing holds if someone thought 2+2=5 and seriously argued it. Do we award him a degree when he has failed at math so egregiously?

Thank you for proving my point. You're all for the evaluation of ideas until someone evaluates the ideas and settles on socialism. Do you not see your own hypocrisy?

They aren't playing by the damn rules. They aren't letting the market place do it's think. They are trying to slip their ideas that don't meet the rules of the marketplace into the marketplace.

You are really dense. The MARKETPLACE decides. The rules. The mathematics proofs. The Scientific method. People can't just postulate anything and let it fly. Otherwise, we wouldn't get anywhere. Ideas have to have some merit. Yet in this day and age there are lots of ideas that have no merit because they don't play by the rules. You seem to be just fine letting imagination and reality mix with no restraint for learning. That is, you would like to have an "anything goes" approach rather than forcing people to play by the rules.

For being such a bright guy, once you start into your absolutist arguments, you get closed minded and come across like a christian fundamentalist...

Adept Havelock

04-18-2008, 10:29 AM

For being such a bright guy, once you start into your absolutist arguments, you get closed minded and come across like a christian fundamentalist...

There you go again...

confusing "The Scientific Method" with mere "Dogma". :shake:

For being such a bright guy, you really have trouble with such a simple concept.

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 10:35 AM

For being such a bright guy, once you start into your absolutist arguments, you get closed minded and come across like a christian fundamentalist...

Way to address the points raised.

The point I'm making is that somewhere there is a line. There are rules by which one has to play. Rules that decide which are testable and which aren't. Rules that determine which ideas are pure fantasy and which are science. Science and science fiction, if you will.

@patteeu

I fully understand - and did before you explained it - what you meant by frames of reference. If I stand on the sun, everything looks to orbit around it. If I stand on Earth it would appear to orbit around us (even though there's some big holes in that as the planets don't really orbit around us as we can observe, though they cross our paths.

You suggested that 2+2=5 could not be in the same vein as geocentrism because otherwise I would defeat my own point. But that's my very point. There's the line. On one hand we have drawn a line that says there are no alternative frames of reference for what "2" and "4" mean. Likewise, why should it be any different with respect to geocentrism.

Also, like AH, I'm REALLY, genuinely surprised that you would take, without hesitation, something someone said for truth. That being Enstein's beliefs on geocentrism. Is there ANY proof of this? All you have is one man saying something. I'm really confused on that point.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 10:36 AM

I do understand that, and appreciate the time taken.

However, I'll stick with Occam's Razor, which in this case the math suggests Heliocentrism is "correct".

I don't have a problem with people preferring to think about the solar system in a heliocentric way, but Occam's Razor doesn't really apply here. As for "correct", they are both equally correct.

I'm not sure about the authors ranting about geocentricism somehow validating ID, as ID is still based on an unfalsifiable idea. Then again, what else can one expect from a proponent of psuedo-science? :shrug:

I don't really know much about ID, but I'm not signing on to any notion that the validity of geocentrism adds any weight to the ID argument at all.

Adept Havelock

04-18-2008, 10:38 AM

You suggested that 2+2=5 could not be in the same vein as geocentrism because otherwise I would defeat my own point. But that's my very point. There's the line. On one hand we have drawn a line that says there are no alternative frames of reference for what "2" and "4" mean. Likewise, why should it be any different with respect to geocentrism.

Actually, there are "alternative frames of reference" for 2, 4, and other numerals.

I don't have a problem with people preferring to think about the solar system in a heliocentric way,

How generous of you. NASA will be quite relieved. :p

but Occam's Razor doesn't really apply here. As for "correct", they are both equally correct.

Sure it does. While both can be shown mathematically, the mathematics are far simpler if you put the Sun in the center. Thus Occam's razor (suggesting the simplest solution is usually the most accurate one) suggests that Heliocentrism is more accurate the Geocentrism. :shrug:

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 10:39 AM

Question to all: Is there anything to gain by saying the Earth orbits the Sun? I ask because I contend that there is more to gain for the interests of the parties backing geocentrism. In other words, I think defending the Bible; maintaining the idea that Earth (God's "creation") is the center of the universe, is almost like considering the money trail for an argument. It seems to me that there's really nothing in it for science - monetary, informationally, etc - to say that the Earth orbits the Sun while the other side has everything to gain by contending it doesn't.

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 10:39 AM

Actually, there are "alternative frames of reference" for 2, 4, and other numerals.

There are 10 people in life. Those that understand binary and those that don't. ;)

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 10:42 AM

I don't have a problem with people preferring to think about the solar system in a heliocentric way, but Occam's Razor doesn't really apply here. As for "correct", they are both equally correct.

No. They aren't. When we get an objective view of the solar system, that is you and I are standing on a space ship over looking the solar system, one of us will be right and one will be wrong. That means they aren't and can't be equally correct.

But again, you're refusing to draw a line where a line needs to be drawn.

I don't really know much about ID, but I'm not signing on to any notion that the validity of geocentrism adds any weight to the ID argument at all.

Well, it's actually in the same vein. The whole line of thinking behind it is that God created earth (and Man's his prized possession - seeing as we worship him and he created us etc). Therefore, the Earth is the center of the universe. It's a primitive form of thinking but one that still, apparently, is alive and well.

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 10:42 AM

There are 10 people in life. Those that understand binary and those that don't. ;)

:)

patteeu

04-18-2008, 10:43 AM

@patteeu

I fully understand - and did before you explained it - what you meant by frames of reference. If I stand on the sun, everything looks to orbit around it. If I stand on Earth it would appear to orbit around us (even though there's some big holes in that as the planets don't really orbit around us as we can observe, though they cross our paths.

You suggested that 2+2=5 could not be in the same vein as geocentrism because otherwise I would defeat my own point. But that's my very point. There's the line. On one hand we have drawn a line that says there are no alternative frames of reference for what "2" and "4" mean. Likewise, why should it be any different with respect to geocentrism.

I agreed with you that if you were just treating "2" and "5" as empty symbols that you can redefine to mean the concepts of "2" and "4" that your analogy was accurate. Unfortunately for you, that blows your argument that there is an inherent truth beneath heliocentrism because you are effectively admitting that heliocentrism is just a convention not a truth. The concept that "2+2=4" is a truth regardless of what symbols we use to depict that concept. The choice of symbols is a convention as is our tendancy to model our solar system as heliocentric. It's a convention, not a truth.

Adept Havelock

04-18-2008, 10:44 AM

There are 10 people in life. Those that understand binary and those that don't. ;)

I love that quote.

It's a primitive form of thinking but one that still, apparently, is alive and well.

It may be "alive and well", but in that condition it's far more like the Yangtze River Dolphin, Giant Panda, or Black Rhino than the common housecat. ;)

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 10:47 AM

I agreed with you that if you were just treating "2" and "5" as empty symbols that you can redefine to mean the concepts of "2" and "4" that your analogy was accurate. Unfortunately for you, that blows your argument that there is an inherent truth beneath heliocentrism because you are effectively admitting that heliocentrism is just a convention not a truth. The concept that "2+2=4" is a truth regardless of what symbols we use to depict that concept. The choice of symbols is a convention as is our tendancy to model our solar system as heliocentric. It's a convention, not a truth.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

I know that if I argue the frames of reference viewpoint with respect to math it blows my heliocentrism argument out of the water. But that's my very point.

The concept of 2+2=4 is ONLY truth where 2 is defined to mean two. (If you get what I'm trying to say) If 2 was actually defined as 9, 9+9 doesn't equal 4. That's a frame of reference. We have set the frame of reference to define something. We have said "2" = something meaning two. Therefore, 2+2=4. We don't have two frames of reference where half the people can decide that 2+2=4 and half say that 9+9=4.

I hope you get what I'm trying to say. It's hard to get the point across with such a rigid frame of reference in defining language and math. ;)

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 10:48 AM

I love that quote.

It may be "alive and well", but in that condition it's far more like the Yangtze River Dolphin than the common housecat. ;)

Fair point.

patteeu

04-18-2008, 10:53 AM

How generous of you. NASA will be quite relieved. :p

According to the OP article's author, fwiw, they aren't as hung up on heliocentrism as you might think:

Actually, when Consolmagno said the math worked easier with heliocentrism, I wish I could have chimed in at that point, since I could have shown that the math actually works easier with geocentrism. In fact, it works so much easier that NASA and the Jet Propulsion Lab use geocentric mechanics to send up their spaceflights, and they correct the Solar Barycentric Model by using the Fixed Earth model!

Sure it does. While both can be shown mathematically, the mathematics are far simpler if you put the Sun in the center. Thus Occam's razor (suggesting the simplest solution is usually the most accurate one) suggests that Heliocentrism is more accurate the Geocentrism. :shrug:

Of course, you're still confronted with the sticky detail that Heliocentrism is not more accurate than Geocentrism. :shrug:

When you add a couple of fractions (11/32 + 13/32), do you use Occam's Razor to conclude that 24/32 is a more accurate answer than 3/4 because you don't have to take the extra step to simplify the fraction? Or, alternatively do you use Occam's Razor to conclude that 3/4 is more accurate because it makes subsequent calculations simpler? Or is the truth that both are equally accurate even though 3/4 is generally preferred by convention?

patteeu

04-18-2008, 11:02 AM

Well, it's actually in the same vein. The whole line of thinking behind it is that God created earth (and Man's his prized possession - seeing as we worship him and he created us etc). Therefore, the Earth is the center of the universe. It's a primitive form of thinking but one that still, apparently, is alive and well.

Thanks, I do understand the basics, I just don't understand the details of their arguments.

No. They aren't. When we get an objective view of the solar system, that is you and I are standing on a space ship over looking the solar system, one of us will be right and one will be wrong. That means they aren't and can't be equally correct.

But again, you're refusing to draw a line where a line needs to be drawn.

They are equally correct. We could both stand on that space ship and one of us could describe what we see as heliocentric, while the other one says it's geocentric, and then the ship captain could even chime in and take the spaceship-centric position. All three of us would be equally correct.

Which of these diagrams accurately describes the two binary stars from my earlier example? The answer is that they are all equally accurate (minus my artistic shortcomings):

patteeu

04-18-2008, 11:09 AM

I disagree wholeheartedly.

I know that if I argue the frames of reference viewpoint with respect to math it blows my heliocentrism argument out of the water. But that's my very point.

The concept of 2+2=4 is ONLY truth where 2 is defined to mean two. (If you get what I'm trying to say) If 2 was actually defined as 9, 9+9 doesn't equal 4. That's a frame of reference. We have set the frame of reference to define something. We have said "2" = something meaning two. Therefore, 2+2=4. We don't have two frames of reference where half the people can decide that 2+2=4 and half say that 9+9=4.

I hope you get what I'm trying to say. It's hard to get the point across with such a rigid frame of reference in defining language and math. ;)

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't fit very well, IMO, with the language you used in your OP when you asked:

1) Do you believe in heliocentricity?
2) Is there sufficient evidence to contradict heliocentricity or geocentrism (whichever you don't believe in)?

If you're just saying that you thought we'd all agreed to use the heliocentric convention and you're surprised that there are still people thinking in equally accurate but unorthodox geocentric terms, then I don't have a problem with it.

But the OP article you linked gave a clear impression that the "Interviewer" believed that you had to pick one or the other as a matter of truth (not convention) and you seemed to be embracing that same perspective as late as your post #67 where you continue to say that they aren't equally correct and that if we were both standing at the same observation point we'd either have to agree or one of us would be wrong.

If you're admitting now that both are equally accurate, we can agree.

tiptap

04-18-2008, 11:44 AM

Thanks, I do understand the basics, I just don't understand the details of their arguments.

They are equally correct. We could both stand on that space ship and one of us could describe what we see as heliocentric, while the other one says it's geocentric, and then the ship captain could even chime in and take the spaceship-centric position. All three of us would be equally correct.

Which of these diagrams accurately describes the two binary stars from my earlier example? The answer is that they are all equally accurate (minus my artistic shortcomings):

I will go in to this later this evening but your assumption that they are all equal is predicated upon a Euclidean Transformation and that would show a Newtonian precession about each other. The actual General Relativity Einstein would give a different result and one that is representative of the Space. That Space would be the same no matter what the Reference system. That in fact is what General Relativity is all about. You have made the Reference system supreme and not the space.

irishjayhawk

04-18-2008, 01:02 PM

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't fit very well, IMO, with the language you used in your OP when you asked:

If you're just saying that you thought we'd all agreed to use the heliocentric convention and you're surprised that there are still people thinking in equally accurate but unorthodox geocentric terms, then I don't have a problem with it.

But the OP article you linked gave a clear impression that the "Interviewer" believed that you had to pick one or the other as a matter of truth (not convention) and you seemed to be embracing that same perspective as late as your post #67 where you continue to say that they aren't equally correct and that if we were both standing at the same observation point we'd either have to agree or one of us would be wrong.

If you're admitting now that both are equally accurate, we can agree.

So you are going to argue, in essence, that if we were standing on a space ship far away and overlooking our solar system, both ways would be still be valid, right, accurate etc?

And FWIW, the bigger question is the last question in the OP. Can you address that just to see where you stand?

patteeu

04-18-2008, 02:23 PM

I will go in to this later this evening but your assumption that they are all equal is predicated upon a Euclidean Transformation and that would show a Newtonian precession about each other. The actual General Relativity Einstein would give a different result and one that is representative of the Space. That Space would be the same no matter what the Reference system. That in fact is what General Relativity is all about. You have made the Reference system supreme and not the space.

Enlighten me. Something tells me that the thread starter did not create this thread based on his perception of general relativity, but I'll be interested in seeing you explain how relativity changes things, if it really does.

tiptap

04-18-2008, 08:20 PM

First the OP piece was written by Sungenis. Consolmagno was the astronomer associated with the Vatican. Sungenis is a advocate for geocentrism. He authored the book "Galileo Was Wrong." He argues that Galileo was not a Catholic. His and Kepler's arguments are the central ideas that supports modern science that is naturalistic in its approach. Remove this and all the godless ideas including evolution fall apart. Sungenis is a Catholic Apologist and claims the earlier Pope pronouncements on Geocentrism are true. It is more fundamental then JUST a convenient change of Frame of Reference.

So I took the time to read some of Sungenis writings. He distinguishes between a totally unmoving earth at the center of the universe and a spinning earth at the center of the universe. he accepts the later. It accounts for Coriolis effect that is impossible to do in a totally unmoving earth. Additionally he does not advocate a flat earth. That is wrong on the Geometry as I stated earlier. The sum of the triangle laid out on a circle is 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere it is always larger.

So if you have Newtonian physics, built upon Galileo's and Kepler's work, you arrive at Euclidean space. This type of existence associated stronger gravity with more mass. We can measure that on earth. This plus a modern knowledge of the distance to the moon (we've been there and can measure even now the time for light to make a round trip) and unless you can demonstrate the the speed of light changes and that our measurements in getting to the moon are wrong, then the mass gravity interactions between the two shows a center of mass that that is not on either. As such the earth moves in relation to that center in the earth/moon system. Add in the confidence in the inverse square law of light and distance and you quickly get the sun, other planets and stars sorted out based upon distance and mass requirements for obtaining the orbital characteristics. The moon earth interactions stands as evidence against the Sungenis idea. And the Kepler laws derived by Newton based upon mass dictate that sun centered (or nearly so since it really is an ellipse) is more correct. Now if you wish only to deal with the already established motion and not relate that motion as a result of mass, then you can use an arbitrary Frame of Reference but you are only dealing with geometry and not physics. Throw in parallax measurements of stars and you have good reasons to choose a heliocentric PHYSICS.

I will go through the General Relativity argument later.

tiptap

04-19-2008, 10:37 AM

So we can begin with the Einstein understanding by starting with Newtons assertion that mass and gravity are related. What Einstein adds is that gravity affects everything, not just other masses. This makes sense if you think of the mass energy are the same. Newton doesn't explain gravity just notes its overall effect on masses and mass is the "source" of gravity. From Maxwell's equation for Electromagnetism one can calculate the speed of light, not measure, but calculate from the properties of waves and the interaction of magnetism and electric fields. So the invariants turn out not to be length or time but include the speed of light and other quantities that are represented by different orders of Tensors, which are a kind of geometric form, extrapolated from vectors and matrices. (Math people generalize Tensors even more abstractly but physicists restrict Tensors to physical forms.) It is these relationships that are invariant. One easy one that can be represented algebraically so we don't have to use tensors, is the pythagorean analogue. delta (s)squared = (t*c)squared-x squared - y squared - z squared. (Notice we treat time different than Euclidean distance by the change in signs). This quantity is the same for all inertial frame of references.

So we then get the result that mass "bend" space and that in turn moves mass. Usually you get the picture of a spongy surface with bowling, tennis balls and such indenting the surface and so distorting and influencing each others movement. (I don't like this image. It is seen from a Euclidean frame outside the system. This goes back to having an absolute reference system that the universe is embedded in. This is what GR is getting rid of.) So when we talk about geometric Frame of References those systems are arbitrary. They are like foot or meter or furlong. They are the algebras that we can use for the physics/geometry. But the invariant characteristics are not. Many times the Frame of Reference makes the particular tensor calculations easier. And the proper use of the tensor equations helps to work through those easy adjustment. It points to the Frame of Reference FREE adjustments one can make to help get solutions. It maintains the invariant quantities. There interrelationship for any particular event can be a bear to solve.

Because the geometry is front and center than it is essential to understanding and not the convenient Frame of Reference that is the algebra. We can see this by mentioning vectors. Most people have a Euclidean idea of vectors. Quantity and direction. Well the Frame of Reference could be x, y, and z three normal axis of Euclidean space. Or they could be r, Theta, and z of cylindrical frame. The vector stays the same but the three parts or componets are quite different. The resultant is the same. Invariants in 4 dimensional Minkowski are vector like tensors (of 1st order). The Frame of Reference are arbitrary. But what people who go with Geocentric ideas take away is that the Frames of reference are arbitrary and yet than make them the focus. An example given by Sungenis ideas is that you can show that the speed of light is not the limit because if you spin real fast with the moon on the horizon (or sun) then the velocity using yourself as the zero point of the spending moon is faster than the speed of light at the distance the moon is from the earth. What this shows to me is that this particular Frame of Reference is not the best one to demonstrate the CONSERVATION OF THE INVARIANT we are concern with, in this case the speed of light as a limit. However it is instead used to allow the stars or planets to revolve faster than the speed of light. (They actually don't really need this argument if the space itself is turning however problems arrive coordinating different objects and their interactions and relative motions even with their Planck particles being the the source of movement of the heavens.) But it shows how confused they are as what is the focus.

The summation in a while.

patteeu

04-19-2008, 11:36 AM

tiptap,

I don't know why you think any of that makes heliocentrism any more correct than geocentrism.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why we need to leave Newtonian science to resolve this argument. The argument is that the common understanding that the Earth revolves around the sun is correct and that an alternative understanding that the Sun revolves around the Earth is incorrect. Based on what you've provided here, they both seem either equally correct (in Newtonian terms) or (possibly) equally incorrect (if your relativity theory holds any water). Which makes me wonder when was the last time you objected to someone who said the Earth revolves around the Sun by resorting to relativity science?

irishjayhawk

04-19-2008, 11:41 AM

tiptap,

I don't know why you think any of that makes heliocentrism any more correct than geocentrism.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why we need to leave Newtonian science to resolve this argument. The argument is that the common understanding that the Earth revolves around the sun is correct and that an alternative understanding that the Sun revolves around the Earth is incorrect. Based on what you've provided here, they both seem either equally correct (in Newtonian terms) or (possibly) equally incorrect (if your relativity theory holds any water). Which makes me wonder when was the last time you objected to someone who said the Earth revolves around the Sun by resorting to relativity science?

Again, if we saw from a ship an objective birds eye view of the solar system, one of us would be right, correct?

patteeu

04-19-2008, 12:47 PM

Again, if we saw from a ship an objective birds eye view of the solar system, one of us would be right, correct?

If we were saying the same things that we've been saying in this thread, I'd be correct and you'd be wrong. If one of us was saying that the earth revolves around the sun and the other was saying the sun revolves around the earth, we'd both be equally correct (and equally incorrect to the extent that we were denying the truth of the other's assertion).

Taco John

04-19-2008, 12:56 PM

Which of these is more correct:

1 + 1 = 2

or

4 - 2 = 2

irishjayhawk

04-19-2008, 01:41 PM

If we were saying the same things that we've been saying in this thread, I'd be correct and you'd be wrong. If one of us was saying that the earth revolves around the sun and the other was saying the sun revolves around the earth, we'd both be equally correct (and equally incorrect to the extent that we were denying the truth of the other's assertion).

No, we wouldn't. It would be apparent that one is stationary or, better put, the center of the revolution.

(And yes, I know what you're getting at.) Again, you have to set a frame of reference to get somewhere.

There is an obvious advantage for the church to claim the Earth as the center rather than vice versa. It fits in with their mantra that man is the epitome of creation and hence where man dwells is the center of the universe/solar system/etc.

Taco John

04-19-2008, 01:48 PM

No, we wouldn't. It would be apparent that one is stationary or, better put, the center of the revolution.

The sun is just a stationary thing set in space with no movement outside of rotation?

irishjayhawk

04-19-2008, 01:49 PM

The sun is just a stationary thing set in space with no movement outside of rotation?

I said better put, center, fulcrum, point of rotation, etc. I guess I needed the word appears before stationary.

tiptap

04-19-2008, 02:28 PM

tiptap,

I don't know why you think any of that makes heliocentrism any more correct than geocentrism.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why we need to leave Newtonian science to resolve this argument. The argument is that the common understanding that the Earth revolves around the sun is correct and that an alternative understanding that the Sun revolves around the Earth is incorrect. Based on what you've provided here, they both seem either equally correct (in Newtonian terms) or (possibly) equally incorrect (if your relativity theory holds any water). Which makes me wonder when was the last time you objected to someone who said the Earth revolves around the Sun by resorting to relativity science?

Strictly Newtonian here. Ok what is the shape of the orbits? Geometrically speaking in heliocentric sense the sun is at one focal point of an ellipse with the planet (earth) tracing out the ellipse. Geocentrically speaking we have epicircles on circles traced out by planets and the sun though you could put epicircles on an ellipse (epicircles are needed to explain retrograde motion). These are geometrically identical. However what accounts for why the planets trace out an ellipse in the first place? This is where the physics, not just the geometry or the Frame of Reference informs us. We know by experiment what G is, the gravitational constant. (Cavendish) We know that there is a balance between the force of gravity from the involved masses and the momentum of the planet. So what is the shape that results from this balance. It turns out to be an ellipse with the larger mass closer to a focal point of both ellipses. (That focal length of the larger mass' ellipse and the focal point of the smaller mass). This comes from Newton three laws. Most people have at least seen the derivation of Kepler's Laws from Newtonian physics. So if I do this for the Earth and Moon. We know the distance to the moon (we have been there) and we know the masses (can be obtained by knowing G), we can determine which mass, Earth or the Moon, is closer to a pair of focal points of the two ellipses. One of the masses is much closer and is more appropriately the center. When the mass difference is as large as the difference as the sun and earth, both focal points of both ellipses lie within the diameter of the sun itself. Easily the center of the relationship.

As to your aside about entertaining Einstein, I didn't bring it up. Sungenis has a whole chapter set aside just about General Relativity and stating that since no Frame of Reference is more correct than any other that choosing the geocentric as absolute is justified. I am not spending the dollars to get his book. If you wish to spend the bucks and loan it to me I will walk through it.

So here is the point Patteeu, if you are just dealing with the kinetics, just the shapes, than there is really no distinction. But if you are dealing with the physics, there is no way Newtonian laws can explain epicircles and there is no explanation offered beyond crystal spheres or Planck particles or angels or Apollos chariots to explain such movements and none of them are mechanistic. They are all continuously directed, powered movements.

And here is the GR relationship patteeu. Since it is the actual shape of space that is the equivalent of gravity, not some force originating in mass, but mass distorting space to direct movement, the shape traced by planets are different than one determined by Newtonian physics and geocentric analysis. The shape doesn't change if either Frame of Reference is equally valid. The larger sun shouldn't effect the shape of space near it unless it is more massive and more central to the effect. We know that the orbit of Mercury (or if you need something human controlled than GPS satellite signals) do trace the predictions of GR. This argues for placing the sun in the center, at the center of the greatest Riemann curve (the lowest point so to speak).

irishjayhawk

04-19-2008, 02:40 PM

Strictly Newtonian here. Ok what is the shape of the orbits? Geometrically speaking in heliocentric sense the sun is at one focal point of an ellipse with the planet (earth) tracing out the ellipse. Geocentrically speaking we have epicircles on circles traced out by planets and the sun though you could put epicircles on an ellipse (epicircles are needed to explain retrograde motion). These are geometrically identical. However what accounts for why the planets trace out an ellipse in the first place? This is where the physics, not just the geometry or the Frame of Reference informs us. We know by experiment what G is, the gravitational constant. (Cavendish) We know that there is a balance between the force of gravity from the involved masses and the momentum of the planet. So what is the shape that results from this balance. It turns out to be an ellipse with the larger mass closer to a focal point of both ellipses. (That focal length of the larger mass' ellipse and the focal point of the smaller mass). This comes from Newton three laws. Most people have at least seen the derivation of Kepler's Laws from Newtonian physics. So if I do this for the Earth and Moon. We know the distance to the moon (we have been there) and we know the masses (can be obtained by knowing G), we can determine which mass, Earth or the Moon, is closer to a pair of focal points of the two ellipses. One of the masses is much closer and is more appropriately the center. When the mass difference is as large as the difference as the sun and earth, both focal points of both ellipses lie within the diameter of the sun itself. Easily the center of the relationship.

As to your aside about entertaining Einstein, I didn't bring it up. Sungenis has a whole chapter set aside just about General Relativity and stating that since no Frame of Reference is more correct than any other that choosing the geocentric as absolute is justified. I am not spending the dollars to get his book. If you wish to spend the bucks and loan it to me I will walk through it.

So here is the point Patteeu, if you are just dealing with the kinetics, just the shapes, than there is really no distinction. But if you are dealing with the physics, there is no way Newtonian laws can explain epicircles and there is no explanation offered beyond crystal spheres or Planck particles or angels or Apollos chariots to explain such movements and none of them are mechanistic. They are all continuously directed, powered movements.

And here is the GR relationship patteeu. Since it is the actual shape of space that is the equivalent of gravity, not some force originating in mass, but mass distorting space to direct movement, the shape traced by planets are different than one determined by Newtonian physics and geocentric analysis. The shape doesn't change if either Frame of Reference is equally valid. The larger sun shouldn't effect the shape of space near it unless it is more massive and more central to the effect. We know that the orbit of Mercury (or if you need something human controlled than GPS satellite signals) do trace the predictions of GR. This argues for placing the sun in the center, at the center of the greatest Riemann curve (the lowest point so to speak).

Out of curiosity, are you a rocket scientist or science professor.

That's damn complicated shit.

tiptap

04-19-2008, 02:53 PM

I am not trying to tread upon my credentials. It doesn't help in discussions on line. You have to be willing to demonstrate, to exercise one knowledge publicly so that others can follow the detail necessary to correctly evaluate a situation. If things were simple we'd all have no questions. It requires the details. Details people can follow. I hope many can follow the outline of the argument.

tiptap

04-19-2008, 05:24 PM

Which of these is more correct:

1 + 1 = 2

or

4 - 2 = 2

It is the system that is more correct. That is the same integers and algebraic operation of addition (which requires an identity and negative) are correct. It is the system, one a heliocentric the other a geocentric, that are being compared. And while one can be linearly transposed into the other algebraically, they are not the same in the system which gives rise to the shapes of passage of the sun and earth. And only the heliocentric has a robust explanation, based upon Newton's laws and gravity, that can be extended to other dynamic orbit systems. It is the total system that is being judged, not the particular determination.

patteeu

04-20-2008, 07:45 AM

No, we wouldn't. It would be apparent that one is stationary or, better put, the center of the revolution.

(And yes, I know what you're getting at.) Again, you have to set a frame of reference to get somewhere.

There is an obvious advantage for the church to claim the Earth as the center rather than vice versa. It fits in with their mantra that man is the epitome of creation and hence where man dwells is the center of the universe/solar system/etc.

:shake:

The guy in the spaceship might prefer a frame of reference centered on the spaceship and then both heliocentrism and geocentrism are wrong. As long as you're admitting that you have to choose a frame of reference (as opposed to one frame of reference being correct and the other being wrong), you're admitting that neither is more correct than the other.

patteeu

04-20-2008, 07:49 AM

Strictly Newtonian here. Ok what is the shape of the orbits? Geometrically speaking in heliocentric sense the sun is at one focal point of an ellipse with the planet (earth) tracing out the ellipse. Geocentrically speaking we have epicircles on circles traced out by planets and the sun though you could put epicircles on an ellipse (epicircles are needed to explain retrograde motion). These are geometrically identical. However what accounts for why the planets trace out an ellipse in the first place? This is where the physics, not just the geometry or the Frame of Reference informs us. We know by experiment what G is, the gravitational constant. (Cavendish) We know that there is a balance between the force of gravity from the involved masses and the momentum of the planet. So what is the shape that results from this balance. It turns out to be an ellipse with the larger mass closer to a focal point of both ellipses. (That focal length of the larger mass' ellipse and the focal point of the smaller mass). This comes from Newton three laws. Most people have at least seen the derivation of Kepler's Laws from Newtonian physics. So if I do this for the Earth and Moon. We know the distance to the moon (we have been there) and we know the masses (can be obtained by knowing G), we can determine which mass, Earth or the Moon, is closer to a pair of focal points of the two ellipses. One of the masses is much closer and is more appropriately the center. When the mass difference is as large as the difference as the sun and earth, both focal points of both ellipses lie within the diameter of the sun itself. Easily the center of the relationship.

As to your aside about entertaining Einstein, I didn't bring it up. Sungenis has a whole chapter set aside just about General Relativity and stating that since no Frame of Reference is more correct than any other that choosing the geocentric as absolute is justified. I am not spending the dollars to get his book. If you wish to spend the bucks and loan it to me I will walk through it.

So here is the point Patteeu, if you are just dealing with the kinetics, just the shapes, than there is really no distinction. But if you are dealing with the physics, there is no way Newtonian laws can explain epicircles and there is no explanation offered beyond crystal spheres or Planck particles or angels or Apollos chariots to explain such movements and none of them are mechanistic. They are all continuously directed, powered movements.

And here is the GR relationship patteeu. Since it is the actual shape of space that is the equivalent of gravity, not some force originating in mass, but mass distorting space to direct movement, the shape traced by planets are different than one determined by Newtonian physics and geocentric analysis. The shape doesn't change if either Frame of Reference is equally valid. The larger sun shouldn't effect the shape of space near it unless it is more massive and more central to the effect. We know that the orbit of Mercury (or if you need something human controlled than GPS satellite signals) do trace the predictions of GR. This argues for placing the sun in the center, at the center of the greatest Riemann curve (the lowest point so to speak).

I can't say that I'm confident that I fully understand your last paragraph, but based on what I think it says, it doesn't sound like your relativity argument is much different than the arguments your making in the first part of that post. It sounds like you're trying to say that since one object is much more massive (the Sun) and therefore influences the resulting motion more than the less massive body (the Earth), that it is naturally the center. I can understand why it is appealing to choose that frame of reference, but I don't understand why that frame of reference becomes "more correct" as a result of those factors.

tiptap

04-20-2008, 09:07 AM

I can't say that I'm confident that I fully understand your last paragraph, but based on what I think it says, it doesn't sound like your relativity argument is much different than the arguments your making in the first part of that post. It sounds like you're trying to say that since one object is much more massive (the Sun) and therefore influences the resulting motion more than the less massive body (the Earth), that it is naturally the center. I can understand why it is appealing to choose that frame of reference, but I don't understand why that frame of reference becomes "more correct" as a result of those factors.

Then try planning to use the same amount of energy to move from the sun to the earth as you would moving from the earth to the sun. If the Frame of Reference is equal then these trips are equivalent. If not then you have failed to include information in formulating your Frame of Reference.

tiptap

04-20-2008, 09:46 AM

It is true that if you are only interested in distances you don't have to be so inclusive. And in Newtonian terms the Frame of computing distance and shape can be separated from the Forces involved. But it was the Newtonian ideas, with the sun at the center, that produced the shape. Once I have the shape I can of course linearly change frames but I didn't change the physics which produced the shape.

irishjayhawk

04-20-2008, 09:54 AM

:shake:

The guy in the spaceship might prefer a frame of reference centered on the spaceship and then both heliocentrism and geocentrism are wrong. As long as you're admitting that you have to choose a frame of reference (as opposed to one frame of reference being correct and the other being wrong), you're admitting that neither is more correct than the other.

Oh, okay, so anyone can be right at any given time depending on what they feel like the frame of reference is. Just like if I feel like defining my frame of reference for 2+2=5 to be true, then that's fine and dandy. If I feel like defining math with a Base 90 math system, I can do that.

Essentially, anything goes.

patteeu

04-20-2008, 11:25 AM

Then try planning to use the same amount of energy to move from the sun to the earth as you would moving from the earth to the sun. If the Frame of Reference is equal then these trips are equivalent. If not then you have failed to include information in formulating your Frame of Reference.

That's not very convincing. I didn't say that different frames of reference were equal (or at least I didn't mean to). In fact I pointed out that math calculations might be simpler if one frame of reference were chosen over another. What I did mean to say is that neither of the frames of reference are more correct or more accurate than the other.

patteeu

04-20-2008, 11:34 AM

Oh, okay, so anyone can be right at any given time depending on what they feel like the frame of reference is. Just like if I feel like defining my frame of reference for 2+2=5 to be true, then that's fine and dandy. If I feel like defining math with a Base 90 math system, I can do that.

Essentially, anything goes.

1 + 1 = 10 (according to a base 2 system and our standard number symbols)

1 + 1 = 2 (according to a base 10 system and our standard number symbols)

To get 2 + 2 = 5, you have to redefine our number symbols in some way, but as long as you do so correctly, it works.

All three of the above are equally correct. None of them change the fundamental mathematical truths underlying the symbologic representations.

tiptap

04-20-2008, 12:10 PM

That's not very convincing. I didn't say that different frames of reference were equal (or at least I didn't mean to). In fact I pointed out that math calculations might be simpler if one frame of reference were chosen over another. What I did mean to say is that neither of the frames of reference are more correct or more accurate than the other.

And this is where GR is more accurate. Items with more mass distort from the Euclidean measurements by the lorentz contraction. The difference is negligible away from larger masses but close to the sun they are not and both Newtonian and Geocentric fail to give as accurate measurement. And this is why GR has no absolute geometric form. You can't separate the mass from the invariants that the Frame of Reference must account for. Both of your Frame of Reference require that pythagorean theorem works. GR will not guarantee this and the example is Mercury's orbital information.

Hydrae

04-20-2008, 03:13 PM

I believe the moon orbits around the earth (geocentric).

I believe the earth orbits around the sun (heliocentric).

I believe the sun orbits around a galactic center (galacticentric?).

I finally believe there is a midpoint to the universe as a whole that our galaxy orbits )unicentric?).

BucEyedPea

04-20-2008, 03:50 PM

I believe the moon orbits around the earth (geocentric).

I believe the earth orbits around the sun (heliocentric).

I believe the sun orbits around a galactic center (galacticentric?).

I finally believe there is a midpoint to the universe as a whole that our galaxy orbits )unicentric?).

I believe there is no midpoint but that it's all running at random.

irishjayhawk

04-20-2008, 04:43 PM

I believe the moon orbits around the earth (geocentric).

I believe the earth orbits around the sun (heliocentric).

I believe the sun orbits around a galactic center (galacticentric?).

I finally believe there is a midpoint to the universe as a whole that our galaxy orbits )unicentric?).

So we agree then, that the sun does not revolve around the earth.

patteeu

04-21-2008, 06:39 AM

And this is where GR is more accurate. Items with more mass distort from the Euclidean measurements by the lorentz contraction. The difference is negligible away from larger masses but close to the sun they are not and both Newtonian and Geocentric fail to give as accurate measurement. And this is why GR has no absolute geometric form. You can't separate the mass from the invariants that the Frame of Reference must account for. Both of your Frame of Reference require that pythagorean theorem works. GR will not guarantee this and the example is Mercury's orbital information.

I'm sorry, none of this means anything to me. I don't know enough about relativity to follow you. Maybe you've conclusively proven that the sun is the center of the universe and that the earth can't possibly be the center, but my intuition still tells me that's not the case. More likely, IMO, is that relativity gives you more of the same kinds of reasons for preferring a model where the sun is the center rather than giving you a reason why the sun *has to be* the center. It would be shocking to me (and quite ironic) to find out that relativity science defines one frame of reference as the correct one.

patteeu

04-21-2008, 06:41 AM

I believe the moon orbits around the earth (geocentric).

I believe the earth orbits around the sun (heliocentric).

I believe the sun orbits around a galactic center (galacticentric?).

I finally believe there is a midpoint to the universe as a whole that our galaxy orbits )unicentric?).

I prefer to look at it as any two bodies that aren't separating at a velocity equal or greater than their escape velocity are orbiting each other at any given point in time.

tiptap

04-21-2008, 07:57 AM

That's not very convincing. I didn't say that different frames of reference were equal (or at least I didn't mean to). In fact I pointed out that math calculations might be simpler if one frame of reference were chosen over another. What I did mean to say is that neither of the frames of reference are more correct or more accurate than the other.

Let's review the arc of this thread.
1. We had posted a thread were two people contended that one couldn't decide between geocentric and heliocentric view of the solar system.

2. One of the people was a Papal Astronomer who wanted to state that his astronomical observations couldn't distinguish between Helio and Geo centric. But Sungenis doesn't stop there. His site, his books state that Heliocentric position is wrong.

3. Then we get examples of the Frame of Reference being equal. But they are not. In the symmetrical examples with stars of the same size orbiting each other we are asked to choose a more appropriate frame. You have hidden the distinction in the highly symmetrical MASS example.

4. Because the observational Frame of Reference, like a coffee can lid pattern to trace out a particular circle, is derived from the example. The geometry is already there and you are considering just the metric.

5. Newtonian physics is like recognizing that a fixed radius of a circle lets you make any size circle based upon the radius. (Newtons laws finds that radius from the balance of Mass and Acceleration with Gravity). That means that the pattern is a result of the physics. You are no longer limited to the particular coffee lid circle. You can predict novel situations without having to see the shape first.

6. Additionally the earth centered Frame requires epicycles to explain planet motion shape. This means that, like the North or South Pole, there are points (where the orbits and epicycles intersect tangentially) that are places where the equations blow up. You can not use that particular point to infer information about the equation. You can not know at that point whether the planet swings on the epicircle or on the orbit unless you introduce primary effect that drives the motion in addition to the Frame of Reference. As opposed to Heliocentric model which has no such points and the central driving forces ARE the generator in the form of gravity and inertial motion.

7. Sungenis recognizes he needs some additional explanation himself and introduces Planck particles, which are too small in time and existence to detect but pushes the planets and the sun in their movements.

8. So Frame of Reference is not sufficient nor are frames equal. And the merits of Newtonian thought or GR in including MASS dictates a Heliocentric or LargerMassCentric approach.

9. That GR dictates that the Frame of Reference is only a convenience of calculation of a particular arrangement. That Physics and the resulting geometry are what is real and no single Frame of Reference can cover all situations.

patteeu

04-21-2008, 08:37 AM

Let's review the arc of this thread.
1. We had posted a thread were two people contended that one couldn't decide between geocentric and heliocentric view of the solar system.

2. One of the people was a Papal Astronomer who wanted to state that his astronomical observations couldn't distinguish between Helio and Geo centric. But Sungenis doesn't stop there. His site, his books state that Heliocentric position is wrong.

3. Then we get examples of the Frame of Reference being equal. But they are not. In the symmetrical examples with stars of the same size orbiting each other we are asked to choose a more appropriate frame. You have hidden the distinction in the highly symmetrical MASS example.

4. Because the observational Frame of Reference, like a coffee can lid pattern to trace out a particular circle, is derived from the example. The geometry is already there and you are considering just the metric.

5. Newtonian physics is like recognizing that a fixed radius of a circle lets you make any size circle based upon the radius. (Newtons laws finds that radius from the balance of Mass and Acceleration with Gravity). That means that the pattern is a result of the physics. You are no longer limited to the particular coffee lid circle. You can predict novel situations without having to see the shape first.

6. Additionally the earth centered Frame requires epicycles to explain planet motion shape. This means that, like the North or South Pole, there are points (where the orbits and epicycles intersect tangentially) that are places where the equations blow up. You can not use that particular point to infer information about the equation. You can not know at that point whether the planet swings on the epicircle or on the orbit unless you introduce primary effect that drives the motion in addition to the Frame of Reference. As opposed to Heliocentric model which has no such points and the central driving forces ARE the generator in the form of gravity and inertial motion.

7. Sungenis recognizes he needs some additional explanation himself and introduces Planck particles, which are too small in time and existence to detect but pushes the planets and the sun in their movements.

8. So Frame of Reference is not sufficient nor are they equal. And the merits of Newtonian thought or GR in including MASS dictates a Heliocentric or LargerMassCentric approach.

9. That GR dictates that the Frame of Reference is only a convenience of calculation of a particular arrangement. That Physics and the resulting geometry are what is real and no single Frame of Reference can cover all situations.

You seem to be involved in a different argument than I am then. I'm arguing with what I perceive as Irish's implication that heliocentric is right and geocentric is wrong. If you are arguing with Sungenis about the reverse then we aren't on the same page.

Furthermore, it's not that the frames of reference are equal, it's that they are equally correct. You've spent all your time proving they weren't equal, when the real issue, as far as i'm concerned, is whether or not one is more correct than the other. And I remain convinced that they are not.

I don't know exactly what you mean by point 6, but geocentrism and heliocentrism are both complicated by "epicycles". The earth is to the Sun is to Neptune as the Sun is to the Earth is to the moon.

Adept Havelock

04-21-2008, 09:02 AM

Furthermore, it's not that the frames of reference are equal, it's that they are equally correct. You've spent all your time proving they weren't equal, when the real issue, as far as i'm concerned, is whether or not one is more correct than the other. And I remain convinced that they are not.

Please define your interpretation of the meaning of the word "correct".

Thanks for the definition. I just wanted that out there so tiptap could directly address it in his next post. I"m quite enjoying this series of posts.

I think you're hung up on heliocentrism because that's the way you've always envisioned reality.

Fair enough. I think you're just playing the sophist. :shrug:

patteeu

04-21-2008, 09:11 AM

As I think you're just playing the sophist. :shrug:

:rolleyes: Why'd you delete this the first time?

Adept Havelock

04-21-2008, 09:13 AM

I removed that part of my answer when I saw that you removed this "sophist" jab from your original question, but it doesn't mean that I don't believe it.

It's not intended as a "jab", just a statement of my opinion.

I quite enjoy wordplay. It can be entertaining.

:rolleyes: Why'd you delete this the first time?

I decided it was unnecessary to the response. However, when I saw you had described your feelings on my POV, I felt it appropriate to do the same. No malice behind it. :shrug:

patteeu

04-21-2008, 09:16 AM

It's not intended as a "jab", just a reflection of my opinion.

I quite enjoy wordplay. It can be a quite entertaining.

If by "sophist" you are implying that I don't really think I'm right, you're wrong about that in this case.

Adept Havelock

04-21-2008, 09:18 AM

If by "sophist" you are implying that I don't really think I'm right, you're wrong about that in this case.

I don't think your belief or lack thereof really impacts on it. It doesn't matter to me if your playing Devil's Advocate or not.

I don't think Sophistry predicates "belief" as a necessary condition for the term to be appropriate.

Perhaps I'm in error on that. If so, and you do believe it, my apologies for misusing the term.

patteeu

04-21-2008, 09:22 AM

I don't think your belief or lack thereof really impacts on it. It doesn't matter to me if your playing Devil's Advocate or not.

I don't think Sophistry predicates "belief" as a necessary condition for the term to be appropriate.

Perhaps I'm in error on that. If so, and you do believe it, my apologies for misusing the term.

OK, well in that case I'm no longer slightly offended. :thumb:

Adept Havelock

04-21-2008, 09:25 AM

OK, well in that case I'm no longer slightly offended. :thumb:

:toast:....Then again, it's early in the day for that...so :rockon:

BucEyedPea

04-21-2008, 09:29 AM

I
A reluctance to submit to peer review (a cornerstone of the Scientific Method) is usually a good indicator.
What does peer review have to do with the Scientific Method?
SM is a process of stating questions, making hypotheses and then testing them out with experiments.

Peer review has it's flaws ya' know. It's not perfect either. Look at what Dr.Semmelweis' peers did to him. They vilified him but he turned out to be correct. Look at what the Lancet says about homeopathic remedies. And Galileo was wrong about the tides despite being right about other things.

." The current consensus is that the Sun is not nearly oblate enough to upset the agreement between Mercury's observed precession and the predictions of GR. This is all the more impressive considering that, in contrast to the Brans-Dicke and other alternative theories, GR has almost no "freedom" to adjust its predictions. It is highly constrained by its own logic, so it's remarkable that it continues to survive experimental challenges.

It should be noted that Mercury isn't the only object in the solar system that exhibits anomalous precession. The effect is most noticeable for objects near the Sun with highly elliptical orbits, but it can be seen even in the nearly circular orbits of Venus and Earth, although the discrepancy isn't nearly so large as for Mercury. In addition, the asteroid Icarus is ideal for studying this effect, because it has an extremely elliptical orbit and periodically passes very close to the Sun.

I anticipate that patteeu will say that the actual observations already have these differences accounted for. After all they are derived from the shapes themselves. One already knows to add 43.1 arc seconds for Mercury over the Newtonian prediction in the empirical formulation. But then he is not allowed to talk about the "Fundamental Mathematics Truths" behind the symbolic representation in the 98 entry in this thread.

The fundamental truth is the physics and not its symbolic, empirically derived Frame of Reference. This is exactly what Einstein and Wyel said as opposed to stating that the arbitrariness of the Frame of Reference is the truth. The Frame of Reference is arbitrary because it cannot override the physics. The invariants are not distance and time and those two are the scope and only concern of a Frame of Reference. It might seem to mean that neither have value in discussion in this solar system. Because the local space is so nearly Euclidean, it does. (Unlike a black hole where it is not at all Euclidean) But in predictions, in new and novel settings, the exact shape of this solar system is nearly useless in deriving the orbiting characteristics. As such the fundamentals come from including MASS in any discussion of orbital characteristics.

Here is a picture of a epicyle. I mischaracterized it. The argument is still valid. The earth is in the center the planet that demonstrates retrograde motion is on the epicircle itself. The center of the epicircle actually traces a circle. So it is the center of the epicircle that is revolving around the earth. However neither Mercury, Venus, Moon or the Sun require this. And yet Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Asteroids, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto do.

The Heliocentric model treats all the planets and earth the same in making the sun the center. Including moons because the moon traces out the circle and not some unseen rotating sphere that carries the moons at the rim of the circle. All bodies move circularly in one direction without coming to a stop.

patteeu

04-21-2008, 08:13 PM

Thank you Adept

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm

." The current consensus is that the Sun is not nearly oblate enough to upset the agreement between Mercury's observed precession and the predictions of GR. This is all the more impressive considering that, in contrast to the Brans-Dicke and other alternative theories, GR has almost no "freedom" to adjust its predictions. It is highly constrained by its own logic, so it's remarkable that it continues to survive experimental challenges.

It should be noted that Mercury isn't the only object in the solar system that exhibits anomalous precession. The effect is most noticeable for objects near the Sun with highly elliptical orbits, but it can be seen even in the nearly circular orbits of Venus and Earth, although the discrepancy isn't nearly so large as for Mercury. In addition, the asteroid Icarus is ideal for studying this effect, because it has an extremely elliptical orbit and periodically passes very close to the Sun.

I anticipate that patteeu will say that the actual observations already have these differences accounted for. After all they are derived from the shapes themselves. One already knows to add 43.1 arc seconds for Mercury over the Newtonian prediction in the empirical formulation. But then he is not allowed to talk about the "Fundamental Mathematics Truths" behind the symbolic representation in the 98 entry in this thread.

The fundamental truth is the physics and not its symbolic, empirically derived Frame of Reference. This is exactly what Einstein and Wyel said as opposed to stating that the arbitrariness of the Frame of Reference is the truth. The Frame of Reference is arbitrary because it cannot override the physics. The invariants are not distance and time and those two are the scope and only concern of a Frame of Reference. It might seem to mean that neither have value in discussion in this solar system. Because the local space is so nearly Euclidean, it does. (Unlike a black hole where it is not at all Euclidean) But in predictions, in new and novel settings, the exact shape of this solar system is nearly useless in deriving the orbiting characteristics. As such the fundamentals come from including MASS in any discussion of orbital characteristics.

I don't see you making any progress on convincing me that I'm wrong. The physics is obviously different than the newtonian simplification that those of us who haven't studied relativity are more comfortable with, but that's a far cry from saying that heliocentrism is correct and geocentrism is wrong.

I don't see any reason to conclude that what I said in post 98 is wrong either. There is the underlying truth (in that case a mathematical truth and in the case of galactic orbits a physical truth) and then there is the frame-of-reference-dependent symbology/model used to describe it. Neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism "override the physics". They're just alternative descriptions of relative motion (not to be confused with relativity, heh).

tiptap

04-21-2008, 10:52 PM

Ok the observational location of the planets from earth can be calculated by the geocentric method and an astronomer does so to look at those planets. But in order to place the observational location for Venus always being close to the sun and being both the morning and evening star and occasionally passing across the face of the Sun, the geocentric method must have Venus on a Epicircle in between the Sun and the earth that circles in sync with the sun. However this means that observing Venus we should never see more than a half Venus crescent. We see almost a full Venus and that is a contrary observation here on earth to the geocentric prediction. In addition we should be able to see Venus cross in front of the Sun both directions. Depending upon which part of the epicircle is involved. But what happens is our observations only show it going in one direction and not at all when we would expect to see Venus going the other way (it being behind the sun for a Heliocentric and of course precludes observation). A failure of observation by the geocentric method.

I had to play with my PDA planetarium to realize this one. It was sort of a "I could have had a V-8" moment.

irishjayhawk

04-21-2008, 11:43 PM

Ok the observational location of the planets from earth can be calculated by the geocentric method and an astronomer does so to look at those planets. But in order to place the observational location for Venus always being close to the sun and being both the morning and evening star and occasionally passing across the face of the Sun, the geocentric method must have Venus on a Epicircle in between the Sun and the earth that circles in sync with the sun. However this means that observing Venus we should never see more than a half Venus crescent. We see almost a full Venus and that is a contrary observation here on earth to the geocentric prediction. In addition we should be able to see Venus cross in front of the Sun both directions. Depending upon which part of the epicircle is involved. But what happens is our observations only show it going in one direction and not at all when we would expect to see Venus going the other way (it being behind the sun for a Heliocentric and of course precludes observation). A failure of observation by the geocentric method.

I had to play with my PDA planetarium to realize this one. It was sort of a "I could have had a V-8" moment.

Actually, I think that's a damn good example. Does the evidence back it up or is it merely a hypothesis?

patteeu

04-22-2008, 05:54 AM

Ok the observational location of the planets from earth can be calculated by the geocentric method and an astronomer does so to look at those planets. But in order to place the observational location for Venus always being close to the sun and being both the morning and evening star and occasionally passing across the face of the Sun, the geocentric method must have Venus on a Epicircle in between the Sun and the earth that circles in sync with the sun. However this means that observing Venus we should never see more than a half Venus crescent. We see almost a full Venus and that is a contrary observation here on earth to the geocentric prediction. In addition we should be able to see Venus cross in front of the Sun both directions. Depending upon which part of the epicircle is involved. But what happens is our observations only show it going in one direction and not at all when we would expect to see Venus going the other way (it being behind the sun for a Heliocentric and of course precludes observation). A failure of observation by the geocentric method.

I had to play with my PDA planetarium to realize this one. It was sort of a "I could have had a V-8" moment.

I think I've decoded enough of this to see that the bolded part is not right. In the geocentric model, Venus is on an epicircle that is centered somewhere near the center of the Sun. Venus doesn't have to be between the Earth and the Sun. Sometimes it's between and sometimes it's on the far side of the Sun.

tiptap

04-22-2008, 05:59 AM

Then you concede that Venus and Mercury are Heliocentric. And comets and asteroids and stuff

tiptap

04-22-2008, 06:03 AM

After all I concede Hydae's post of 100. I have no wish to prove the Moon is heliocentric. It goes back to my earlier posts that the Larger Mass and distance gives the center of stated items in the system that are in orbit.

patteeu

04-22-2008, 06:10 AM

Then you concede that Venus and Mercury are Geocentric. And comets and asteroids and stuff

You mean heliocentric. Of course I do, although I wouldn't call it a concession. Neither the earth nor the sun are the center of the universe according to the way I look at the picture, but either one of them could be seen that way (at least based on our current understanding). And regardless of which center you pick (because it is rather arbitrary), you're going to have cases of epicircles and epicircles of epicircles.

tiptap

04-22-2008, 06:18 AM

In conceding objects that are located both between the earth and sun and at other times beyond the earth and the sun, I have only to find one such object that transits in front of one of the outer planets to show the earth circles the sun. Nicely I only need satellite data from those using gravity slings to get to the outer planets.

tiptap

04-22-2008, 07:25 AM

You mean heliocentric. Of course I do, although I wouldn't call it a concession. Neither the earth nor the sun are the center of the universe according to the way I look at the picture, but either one of them could be seen that way (at least based on our current understanding). And regardless of which center you pick (because it is rather arbitrary), you're going to have cases of epicircles and epicircles of epicircles.

Epicircles never existed because of moons around other planets. They were adjustments to ellipse orbit compared to circles. And to account for retrograde motion. I am not doing the calculations but I guess that if you allowed for ellipses from the start the number of Epicircles would go way down. I guess you could call moons around other planets Epicircles.

But I want to take a step back. Making observations from earth, I can note that Venus transits in only one direction and disappears at times and attribute that to Venus blowing up and reforming (something the Mayans talked about). The empirical observations are periodic and I can just count the periods. So there is no difference or NEED for a heliocentric or geocentric idea in order to make calculations. One only introduces one or the other in order to answer questions about the Physics, the geometry, theology that can account for the observations or related beliefs. So in introducing geocentric idea you are stating that this proposition is true for all observations. If it is just geocentric then it has to be true for all observations involved in the system. The geocentric fails with Mercury and Venus. It is not sufficient. On the other hand heliocentric for everything in the solar system except the moon, does work. And since I argue that it is the Physics that is primary and that involves Mass, I am glad to have that inform me as to what is central to orbital calculations about the system we are concerned with. This is well on the way to GR statement that the Frame of Reference is a convenience though for a certain system under investigation some are better than others.

Adept Havelock

04-22-2008, 09:55 AM

Neither the earth nor the sun are the center of the universe according to the way I look at the picture, but either one of them could be seen that way (at least based on our current understanding).

I think I have identified the conflation at the root of the misunderstanding between us in this discussion.

I'm pretty sure no contemporary Heliocentrist suggests the Sun is the center of the Universe, but rather the center of the Solar System. That sounds more like a variation on the Ptolemaic form of Geocentrism, putting Earth in the center of the vast cosmos due to what the geocentrist probably believes is some special status accorded to Earth and Humanity.

Now, if you're using a definition of Heliocentrism which refers to the "universe" instead of the contemporary one, your point has some validity. However, I've never seen anything suggesting that any contemporary interpretation of Heliocentrism puts the Sun at the center of the Universe as you've stated. I'm also fairly sure that Nicolaus Copernicus didn't state that either. I'm unaware if contemporary geocentrism puts the Earth at the center of the Universe, but I would presume that to be the case, due to the "special status" accorded Earth by some that I referred to earlier.

I believe tiptap is addressing the contemporary usage of heliocentrist and geocentrist as it relates specifically to the Solar System, not the larger Universe.

As for the "universe" based interpretation of heliocentrism and geocentrism, I suspect that can be proved or disproved fairly easily. If the Earth or Sun is the center of the Universe, (I think, but may be mistaken) all other bodies would be moving away from the Sol system. If not, some other point was the origin point of the Big Bang. AFAIK, they are not.

Strictly as an observation, that conflation further reinforces my belief you are practicing sophistry.

patteeu

04-22-2008, 10:26 AM

Epicircles never existed because of moons around other planets. They were adjustments to ellipse orbit compared to circles. And to account for retrograde motion. I am not doing the calculations but I guess that if you allowed for ellipses from the start the number of Epicircles would go way down. I guess you could call moons around other planets Epicircles.

But I want to take a step back. Making observations from earth, I can note that Venus transits in only one direction and disappears at times and attribute that to Venus blowing up and reforming (something the Mayans talked about). The empirical observations are periodic and I can just count the periods. So there is no difference or NEED for a heliocentric or geocentric idea in order to make calculations. One only introduces one or the other in order to answer questions about the Physics, the geometry, theology that can account for the observations or related beliefs. So in introducing geocentric idea you are stating that this proposition is true for all observations. If it is just geocentric then it has to be true for all observations involved in the system. The geocentric fails with Mercury and Venus. It is not sufficient. On the other hand heliocentric for everything in the solar system except the moon, does work. And since I argue that it is the Physics that is primary and that involves Mass, I am glad to have that inform me as to what is central to orbital calculations about the system we are concerned with. This is well on the way to GR statement that the Frame of Reference is a convenience though for a certain system under investigation some are better than others.

I don't know what you mean by "epicircle", but I'm using the word to describe the relative motion of a satellite around a satellite. These epicircles have existed, independent of actual observation for as long as there have been satellites orbiting other satellites.

I understand that you prefer a frame of reference that is defined by mass (most massive = center, to simplify it) and that that preference serves your purposes well, but it's still a preference.

patteeu

04-22-2008, 10:39 AM

I think I have identified the conflation at the root of the misunderstanding between us in this discussion.

I'm pretty sure no contemporary Heliocentrist seriously suggests the Sun is the center of the Universe, but rather the center of the Solar System. That sounds more like an extreme form of Geocentrism, putting Earth in the center of the vast cosmos due to what the geocentrist probably believes is some special status accorded to Earth and Humanity.

Now, if you're using a definition of Heliocentrism which refers to the "universe" instead of the contemporary one, your point has some validity. However, I've never seen anything suggesting that any contemporary interpretation of Heliocentrism puts the Sun at the center of the Universe as you've stated. I'm unaware if contemporary geocentrism puts the Earth at the center of the Universe, but I would presume that to be the case, due to the "special status" accorded Earth by some that I referred to earlier.

I believe tiptap is addressing the contemporary usage of heliocentrist and geocentrist as it relates specifically to the Solar System, not the larger Universe.

As for the "universe" based interpretation of heliocentrism and geocentrism, I suspect that can be proved or disproved fairly easily. If the Earth or Sun is the center of the Universe, (I think, but may be mistaken) all other bodies would be moving away from the Sol system. If not, some other point was the origin point of the Big Bang. AFAIK, they are not.

I've never been defending the extreme form of geocentrism that tip tap and others have been trying to use as a strawman in this discussion. The man quoted in the OP article is obviously (at least to me) not arguing for something extreme.

Whether we're talking about the universe, galaxy, or solar system, you get to choose the frame of reference and choosing to make the earth the center is not inherently incorrect even if most people prefer the standard mass-based concept of center.

Adept Havelock

04-22-2008, 10:43 AM

I've never been defending the extreme form of geocentrism that tip tap and others have been trying to use as a strawman in this discussion. The man quoted in the OP article is obviously (at least to me) not arguing for something extreme.

:hmmm:

Neither the earth nor the sun are the center of the universe according to the way I look at the picture, but either one of them could be seen that way (at least based on our current understanding).

Then why make that statement unless you're conflating the Solar System based model of Heliocentrism with the Universally based model of Geocentrism?

It appears that you conceding the Heliocentric model of the Solar System in your post 125:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4699346&postcount=125

Or are you now arguing that the Heliocentric model of the Solar System is arbitrary? If so, how do you account for the observations of Venus as put forth by tiptap and Copernicus? If the Heliocentric model can account for those observations, but the geocentric model does not, then the Heliocentric "frame of reference" for the Solar System is the one conforming to fact or truth, and thus by your definition, correct. :shrug:

E pur si muove

Whether we're talking about the universe, galaxy, or solar system, you get to choose the frame of reference and choosing to make the earth the center is not inherently incorrect even if most people prefer the standard mass-based concept of center.
As tiptap has shown, that is true only if you err in making the reference system supreme, and not the space.

To summarize:

The observations of Venus prove the heliocentric model of the Solar System is the one reflecting fact or truth, and thus the "correct" one. For the geocentric model of the Solar System to be "equally correct", it must also be able to account for those observations. As tiptap showed, it does not.

If you are using the "not the center point of the universe" argument you brought up in post 125, the fact not all objects are moving away from the Sol System as a result of the big bang would lead me to believe that disproves both a Heliocentric and Geocentric model of the universe. Though that seems to be a strawman argument, as neither Copernicus nor any Heliocentrist I'm aware of states the sun is the center of the universe. :shrug:

If your argument is that neither the Earth nor the Sun is the center of the universe, I don't disagree at all. Nor I suspect would any other supporter of heliocentrism. However, that does not impact on the superior correctness of the Heliocentric model for the Solar System as proved by the Venus observations.

Which is, as I stated, all I have been commenting on. I suspect that is also what tiptap has been addressing. i.e. The correctness of a Heliocentric Solar System model as opposed to a Geocentric model of the Solar System, as confirmed by the Venus observations mentioned above.

patteeu

04-22-2008, 11:15 AM

:hmmm:

Then why that statement unless you're conflating the Solar System based model of Heliocentrism with the Universally based model of Geocentrism?

It appears that you conceding the Heliocentric model of the Solar System in your post 125:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4699346&postcount=125

Or are you now arguing that the Heliocentric model of the Solar System is arbitrary? If so, how do you account for the observations of Venus as put forth by tiptap and Copernicus? If the Heliocentric model can account for those observations, but the geocentric model does not, then the Heliocentric "frame of reference" is the one conforming to fact or truth, and thus by your definition, correct. :shrug:

BTW- As for "not defending the strawman of the extreme form of geocentrism", can you offer anything showing any argument of geocentrism that isn't Universally based being made by anyone?

If you're not defending a Universally based model of Geocentrism (the Earth as the center of the Universe), are you arguing the Solar System is "Geocentric"? If that's the case, it appears you already conceded that point in your post # 125.

I've never seen a geocentric argument that suggested that only the Solar System was geocentric. Indeed, that appear to undermine a fundamental belief behind geocentrism, that there is something unique and special about the Earth and it's place in the cosmos. In Heliocentrism, the Sun is the center of the Solar System (again, proven by the observations of Venus shown above), but it's just another star among trillions.

I'm most definitely not conceding anything. I have not changed my argument an iota since the beginning of this thread. I didn't concede what you say I've conceded in post 125 either. In that post, I "conceded" what I had thought from the beginning. That it's accurate to say that venus and mercury are heliocentric. Left unsaid is that it remains accurate to say that they are geocentric as well (according to the meaning of "geocentric" used by the guy in the OP article not what you and tip tap apparently mean by it).

patteeu

04-22-2008, 11:21 AM

As tiptap has shown, that is true only if you err in making the reference system supreme, and not the space.

To put it simply, the observations of Venus prove the heliocentric model of the Solar System is the one reflecting fact or truth, and thus the "correct" one. For the geocentric model of the Solar System to be "equally correct", it must also be able to account for those observations. As tiptap showed, it cannot. If you are using the "center point of the universe" argument (though Copernicus and no Heliocentrist I'm aware of does) then the fact not all objects are moving away from the Earth as a result of the big bang disproves both a Heliocentric and Geocentric model of the universe.

You're completely wrong about this. You obviously have no idea what my argument is. I thought we'd moved beyond this particular misunderstanding.

Adept Havelock

04-22-2008, 11:37 AM

You obviously have no idea what my argument is. I thought we'd moved beyond this particular misunderstanding.
Actually, I do. You are arguing that the correctness of the geocentric or heliocentric frame of reference is completely arbitrary and neither is more correct than the other.

However, the observations of Venus discussed prove the superior correctness of the Heliocentric Model of the Solar System as opposed to the Geocentric model of the Solar System. Heliocentrism can account for the observations of Venus, while Geocentrism suffers from failure by observation. Thus, Heliocentrism is a more accurate reflection of the reality. Therefore it must be more correct than Geocentrism.

according to the meaning of "geocentric" used by the guy in the OP article not what you and tip tap apparently mean by it.

Then please explain your perception of his meaning of the word "geocentric", and how it differs from the one I'm using. I'd like to make certain of this before I proceed. I'll go first.

My definition of geocentrism: The theory that the Earth is the centerpoint of the Solar System or Universe, and the other objects in the Solar System or Universe revolve around it.

patteeu

04-22-2008, 12:43 PM

Actually, I do. You are arguing that the correctness of the geocentric or heliocentric frame of reference is completely arbitrary.

However, the observations of Venus discussed prove the superior correctness of the Heliocentric Model of the Solar System as opposed to the Geocentric model of the Solar System. Heliocentrism can account for the observations of Venus, while Geocentrism suffers from failure by observation. Thus, Heliocentrism is a more accurate reflection of the reality. Therefore it must be more correct than Geocentrism.

Then please explain your perception of his meaning of the word "geocentric", and how it differs from the one I'm using. I'd like to make certain of this before I proceed. I'll go first.

My definition of geocentrism: The theory that the Earth is the centerpoint of the Solar System or Universe, and the other objects in the Solar System or Universe revolve around it.

No. Actually you don't. My definition is the same as what you wrote, but your's isn't. At least not if you think that tiptap's references to venus observations invalidates it. You seem to be assuming orbits similar to those described in this picture:

http://www.astro.umass.edu/~myun/teaching/a100/images/geocentric.jpg

I'm not. I'm assuming exactly the same relative motion that you do with your heliocentric model and pointing out that that relative motion can be described by a geocentric model too. That's what Sungenis and Consolmagno are talking about in the OP:

Interviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

At this point, the interviewer interrupted and turned to Guy Consolomagno.

Interviewer: "Bro Consolmagno, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?"

Consolmagno: "Well, let's put it this way. It's easier to make calculations with the earth going around the sun."

Adept Havelock

04-22-2008, 12:50 PM

No. Actually you don't. My definition is the same as what you wrote, but your's isn't. At least not if you think that tiptap's references to venus observations invalidates it. You seem to be assuming orbits similar to those described in this picture

I'm not assuming anything except what I stated was my definition of Geocentrism. The Earth is being chosen as the centerpoint around which the Sun and Planets revolve.

I'm not. I'm assuming exactly the same relative motion that you do with your heliocentric model and pointing out that that relative motion can be described by a geocentric model too. That's what Sungenis and Consolmagno are talking about in the OP:

According to "Galileo was Wrong" they adhere to the modern Tychonian system which claims:

1. The universe is rotating.
2. The earth is the fixed center of the universe, not just the center of the Solar System.
3. The sun rotates with the universe.
4. The planets other than Earth orbit the sun.

Let's set aside the Earth can be shown not to be the center of the Universe (the big bang movement I mentioned before).

It doesn't contradict my definition at all, as you are claiming. They have the other planets orbiting the sun except for Earth. This still leaves the other planets orbiting Earth as the sun revolves around the Earth, though in a far more convoluted form than traditional geocentrism.

Constructs like geocentricism and (If I understand the term correctly) imaginary numbers are useful, sure. That doesn't mean they reflect a physical reality (for lack of a more appropriate term) at the same level as other models, as you are assuming. Nor does that preclude that models usefulness in certain instances. However, to argue that the both reflect that physical reality equally well in the face of conclusive observational data to the contrary is absurd.

Let me ask you a simple question. If we put an observer several LY or so out at a 90 degree angle to the ecliptic plane, which do you think they will observe over a time of several centuries?

1) All the Planets orbiting around the Sun in Parabolas(?) (Heliocentrism)

or

2) The Sun (and the rest of the universe) orbiting the Earth, but all the other planets orbiting the Sun (Tychonian Geocentrism)

or

3) The Sun and all planets orbiting the Earth? (Traditional Geocentrism)

I'll cast my lot with the observational science, which leads to the former conclusion.

That said, If you want to embrace or defend a model of cosmology that's contradicted by observation, it's a free country. Just don't expect me to consider it equally as indicative of physical reality (as equally "correct") as a model that isn't contradicted by observation. To be clear, I am speaking of the Venus observations, not my hypothetical observer above the ecliptic. :shrug:

tiptap

04-22-2008, 01:56 PM

I've never been defending the extreme form of geocentrism that tip tap and others have been trying to use as a strawman in this discussion. The man quoted in the OP article is obviously (at least to me) not arguing for something extreme.

Whether we're talking about the universe, galaxy, or solar system, you get to choose the frame of reference and choosing to make the earth the center is not inherently incorrect even if most people prefer the standard mass-based concept of center.

The article in the thread starter is authored by Robert Sungenis. It says so at the beginning and the end. Robert Sungenis is a supporter of the extreme Geocentric position. He has authored the book "Galileo was Wrong," as his argument against Heliocentric and offers the Bible and Catholic dogma as stating Geocentric is correct. Not equal, but correct. The Catholic astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, was asked about the earth sun center. HE states that HELIOCENTRIC model is easier to do calculations, not geocentric. He simply would not take the step of saying the calculations could deliver on their own, a verdict on satellite declaration discerning Heliocentric from Geocentric. And this is where you have retreated. And I agree. But as I said earlier nether Geocentric or Heliocentric is needed to make the calculations. No model is needed. To mention one or the other means that you have additional information you wish to account for. You have made the Frame of Reference, truth. As usual conservatives seek to make the debate about equal access based upon the most fluid condition.

This is exactly what Sungenis means is quoting the support of Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, Bruno Bertotti for his position. Their support comes from saying that the Frame of Reference is arbitrary. But these scientist do not make this finding primary. It is derivative. I don't believe Sungenis has ever worked through a Frame of Reference transformaton. For Celestial Mechanics it simply requires a Matrix transformation. The underlining relationship is sustained. That is exactly what patteeu said in earlier entries in supporting his algebraic examples. Like Sungenis, patteeu uses his turn house Frame of Reference to hide the truth when it comes to cosmology. And not all Frame of References are equal. Indeed all have non differential points (cusps or poles or points at a distance) that make them unsatisfactory compared to other Frames. And in this case impossible for goecentric to cover the Solar System.-=

irishjayhawk

04-22-2008, 02:28 PM

No. Actually you don't. My definition is the same as what you wrote, but your's isn't. At least not if you think that tiptap's references to venus observations invalidates it. You seem to be assuming orbits similar to those described in this picture:

http://www.astro.umass.edu/~myun/teaching/a100/images/geocentric.jpg

I'm not. I'm assuming exactly the same relative motion that you do with your heliocentric model and pointing out that that relative motion can be described by a geocentric model too. That's what Sungenis and Consolmagno are talking about in the OP:

Your purdy photo fails anyway because look at the size of Earth compared with everything else. Everything else is basically to scale.

Adept Havelock

04-22-2008, 04:52 PM

Your purdy photo fails anyway because look at the size of Earth compared with everything else. Everything else is basically to scale.

Ummm, no. Aside from the fact the scale of the planets in the photo is irrelevant, your suggestion the others are even close is very far from the truth.

I'm not assuming anything except what I stated was my definition of Geocentrism. The Earth is being chosen as the centerpoint around which the Sun and Planets revolve.

According to "Galileo was Wrong" they adhere to the modern Tychonian system which claims:

1. The universe is rotating.
2. The earth is the fixed center of the universe, not just the center of the Solar System.
3. The sun rotates with the universe.
4. The planets other than Earth orbit the sun.

Let's set aside the Earth can be shown not to be the center of the Universe (the big bang movement I mentioned before).

It doesn't contradict my definition at all, as you are claiming. They have the other planets orbiting the sun except for Earth. This still leaves the other planets orbiting Earth as the sun revolves around the Earth, though in a far more convoluted form than traditional geocentrism.

Constructs like geocentricism and (If I understand the term correctly) imaginary numbers are useful, sure. That doesn't mean they reflect a physical reality (for lack of a more appropriate term) at the same level as other models, as you are assuming. Nor does that preclude that models usefulness in certain instances. However, to argue that the both reflect that physical reality equally well in the face of conclusive observational data to the contrary is absurd.

Let me ask you a simple question. If we put an observer several LY or so out at a 90 degree angle to the ecliptic plane, which do you think they will observe over a time of several centuries?

1) All the Planets orbiting around the Sun in Parabolas(?) (Heliocentrism)

or

2) The Sun (and the rest of the universe) orbiting the Earth, but all the other planets orbiting the Sun (Tychonian Geocentrism)

or

3) The Sun and all planets orbiting the Earth? (Traditional Geocentrism)

I'll cast my lot with the observational science, which leads to the former conclusion.

That said, If you want to embrace or defend a model of cosmology that's contradicted by observation, it's a free country. Just don't expect me to consider it equally as indicative of physical reality (as equally "correct") as a model that isn't contradicted by observation. To be clear, I am speaking of the Venus observations, not my hypothetical observer above the ecliptic. :shrug:

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I remain convinced that you're wrong. The answer to your question, which was already posed in this thread by Irish btw, is that the observer will see the reality and then he will choose whether to describe that reality as either (1) or (2).

And as for this part:

Let's set aside the Earth can be shown not to be the center of the Universe (the big bang movement I mentioned before).

We continue to disagree on that too.

I can completely understand the attractiveness of choosing to define the "center" on the basis of the mass of the objects (which is what you and other's who cling religiously to heliocentrism are doing). Afterall, it's the way most of us were taught to view the solar system/universe. But center is a matter of opinion and definition.

patteeu

04-22-2008, 06:50 PM

The article in the thread starter is authored by Robert Sungenis. It says so at the beginning and the end. Robert Sungenis is a supporter of the extreme Geocentric position. He has authored the book "Galileo was Wrong," as his argument against Heliocentric and offers the Bible and Catholic dogma as stating Geocentric is correct. Not equal, but correct. The Catholic astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, was asked about the earth sun center. HE states that HELIOCENTRIC model is easier to do calculations, not geocentric. He simply would not take the step of saying the calculations could deliver on their own, a verdict on satellite declaration discerning Heliocentric from Geocentric. And this is where you have retreated. And I agree. But as I said earlier nether Geocentric or Heliocentric is needed to make the calculations. No model is needed. To mention one or the other means that you have additional information you wish to account for. You have made the Frame of Reference, truth. As usual conservatives seek to make the debate about equal access based upon the most fluid condition.

This is exactly what Sungenis means is quoting the support of Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, Bruno Bertotti for his position. Their support comes from saying that the Frame of Reference is arbitrary. But these scientist do not make this finding primary. It is derivative. I don't believe Sungenis has ever worked through a Frame of Reference transformaton. For Celestial Mechanics it simply requires a Matrix transformation. The underlining relationship is sustained. That is exactly what patteeu said in earlier entries in supporting his algebraic examples. Like Sungenis, patteeu uses his turn house Frame of Reference to hide the truth when it comes to cosmology. And not all Frame of References are equal. Indeed all have non differential points (cusps or poles or points at a distance) that make them unsatisfactory compared to other Frames. And in this case impossible for goecentric to cover the Solar System.-=

I certainly have not retreated anywhere. It's very possible that you've been arguing against a strawman this entire thread (even if it may have been based on a misunderstanding), but my position hasn't changed.

I see nothing in that article that indicates that Sungenis supports an extreme geocentric position. His statements within the article suggest otherwise.

And btw, I'm not trying to "hide the truth" in any sense whatsoever. Sometimes I think that you try to hide the truth by taking your discussion to a scientific level that some of us have a hard time following though. I mean did I really have to struggle with relativity to find out that you were limiting your argument to a version of geocentrism that is as obsolete as the flat earth? :shrug:

And once again, alternative frames of reference aren't "equal", they are "equally correct".

Adept Havelock

04-22-2008, 07:18 PM

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I remain convinced that you're wrong.

As I'm quite certain you're wrong, no problem at all. :D

tiptap

04-22-2008, 07:23 PM

Interviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

At this point, the interviewer interrupted and turned to Guy Consolomagno.

Interviewer: "Bro Consolmagno, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?"

Consolmagno: "Well, let's put it this way. It's easier to make calculations with the earth going around the sun."

patteeu uses this quote from Sungenis. I want to point out how much a lie is the claim of Sungenis at least about Einstein (I would do Mach, Babour and all as well but it makes the entry terribly long) This from Albert Einstein's 300 anniversary of Kepler's Death in Nov. of 1930 and Frankfurter Zeitung.

"...Copernicus had opened our eyes of the most intelligent to the fact that the best way to get a clear grasp of the apparent movements of the planets in the heavens was to regard them as movements round the sun conceived as stationary. . . " He then transitions to the difficulty of Kepler to sort out the true shape of the orbits. "To begin with it followed from observations of sun that the apparent path of the sun against the background of the fixed stars differed in speed at different times of the year, but that the angular velocity of this movement was always the same at the same time of the astronomical year. Earth's orbit was closed, described by the earth in the same way every year." Pretend there is a lantern shining and it is outside the line connecting the sun and the earth that lines up to point to a particular place of the fixed stars. "First of all, in every year there comes a moment when the earth E lies exactly on the line joining the sun S and the lantern M. If at this moment we look from the earth E at the lantern M, our line of sight will coincide with the line SM. Suppose the latter to be marked in the heavens. Now imagine the earth in a diferent position and at a different time. Since the sun S and the lantern M can both be seen from the earth, the angle at E in the triangle SEM is known. But we also know the dirrection of the SE in relation to the fixd stars through direct solar observations. while the direction of the line SM in relation to the fixed stars has previously been ascertained once and for all. In the triangle SEM we also know the angle at S,. Therefore, with the base SM arbitrarily laid down on a sheet of paper, we can, in virtue of our knowledge of the angles at E and S, construct the triangle SEM. We might do this at frequent intervals during the year; each time we should get on our piece of paper a position of the earth E with a date attached to it and a certain position in relation to the permanently fixed base SM. The earth's orbit would thereby be empiriically determined, apart from it's absolute size, of course." Einstein goes on to point out the magic lantern was Mars, Jupiter or other planet when it lines up with the original selected Sun Earth line. And then that planets Martian or Jovian Year can serve as that magic lantern. And the shape of the orbits can be determined.

It is clear that Einstein was Heliocentric in his understanding of the Solar System. Contrary to the lies Sungenis would have us believe.

tiptap

04-22-2008, 08:25 PM

patteeu, you have enough of an engineering understanding to have done a fourier series approximation to an arbitrary line. You start with a sine wave and you tweak here and boink there mathematically to get as close as you need to the shape of any line broken or continuous or otherwise. In a sense if you have an empirical observation of the sky, you can adjust here or there the epicircles of a geocentric or adjust the size of the elliptical shape of an heliocentric to get the values right. But what distinguishes Newton's derived Kepler's laws and more correctly still (compared to the emperical determination)Einstein's GR theory, is that the qualities of mass and distance balanced with inertial momentum produced these very exact shapes and descriptions without looking at the answers to tweak the results. Without adding additional found mass or new bodies these answers will get no better.

There is no like analogue for geocentricism. There is nothing but the empirical movement of the planets and sun itself to inform the number and relative size of circles and epicircle or even if we grant the modern understanding of ellipses for geocentric determination. It is much like adjusting the sine wave to imitate the result. So well that it is equally correct to the empirical findings. I actually admit Newton's Derivation is not as good but it never looked to adjusting just the shape to get answers correct. They naturally arise from Newton's Three laws of Motion. And as such provide a Naturalistic explanation. If you wish only to settle for the correct answer, then you win. But you lose the understanding.

tiptap

04-23-2008, 08:38 AM

What separates Man from Apes? One concept that does is the notion of mass. Here is the experiment. Enclosed in a clear cage is an apple. There is a track that can deliver a sphere to hit the apple and if the mass is large enough displaced the apple that is then accessible. If you present a Chimp with two spheres of the same size but different mass (weight), the Chimp will try 50% of the time to use the sphere with insufficient mass to displace the apple. However if you put a 5 year old child in the same experiment the results are that the child will almost always chose the heavier sphere.

In the course of Human Evolution, it became a selective vector, to be able to distinguish the value of mass (weight). Either from throwing spears or shooting arrows or choosing the right rock or bone to swing and use as a tool. But the result was that we gain insight into physics that other apes do not possess.

To then turn to the studies of the heavens and refuse to include our intuition about mass and Nature's physics is to reduce our possible understanding of the Heavens to that of just aping what we see.

patteeu

04-23-2008, 09:20 AM

Interviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

At this point, the interviewer interrupted and turned to Guy Consolomagno.

Interviewer: "Bro Consolmagno, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?"

Consolmagno: "Well, let's put it this way. It's easier to make calculations with the earth going around the sun."

patteeu uses this quote from Sungenis. I want to point out how much a lie is the claim of Sungenis at least about Einstein (I would do Mach, Babour and all as well but it makes the entry terribly long) This from Albert Einstein's 300 anniversary of Kepler's Death in Nov. of 1930 and Frankfurter Zeitung.

"...Copernicus had opened our eyes of the most intelligent to the fact that the best way to get a clear grasp of the apparent movements of the planets in the heavens was to regard them as movements round the sun conceived as stationary. . . " He then transitions to the difficulty of Kepler to sort out the true shape of the orbits. "To begin with it followed from observations of sun that the apparent path of the sun against the background of the fixed stars differed in speed at different times of the year, but that the angular velocity of this movement was always the same at the same time of the astronomical year. Earth's orbit was closed, described by the earth in the same way every year." Pretend there is a lantern shining and it is outside the line connecting the sun and the earth that lines up to point to a particular place of the fixed stars. "First of all, in every year there comes a moment when the earth E lies exactly on the line joining the sun S and the lantern M. If at this moment we look from the earth E at the lantern M, our line of sight will coincide with the line SM. Suppose the latter to be marked in the heavens. Now imagine the earth in a diferent position and at a different time. Since the sun S and the lantern M can both be seen from the earth, the angle at E in the triangle SEM is known. But we also know the dirrection of the SE in relation to the fixd stars through direct solar observations. while the direction of the line SM in relation to the fixed stars has previously been ascertained once and for all. In the triangle SEM we also know the angle at S,. Therefore, with the base SM arbitrarily laid down on a sheet of paper, we can, in virtue of our knowledge of the angles at E and S, construct the triangle SEM. We might do this at frequent intervals during the year; each time we should get on our piece of paper a position of the earth E with a date attached to it and a certain position in relation to the permanently fixed base SM. The earth's orbit would thereby be empiriically determined, apart from it's absolute size, of course." Einstein goes on to point out the magic lantern was Mars, Jupiter or other planet when it lines up with the original selected Sun Earth line. And then that planets Martian or Jovian Year can serve as that magic lantern. And the shape of the orbits can be determined.

It is clear that Einstein was Heliocentric in his understanding of the Solar System. Contrary to the lies Sungenis would have us believe.

It's clear that Einstein thought that it was easier to understand the solar system as heliocentric, but that's not the same thing as saying that Sungenis is wrong (about Einstein) nor is it the same thing as saying that a geocentric model is wrong.

patteeu

04-23-2008, 09:30 AM

patteeu, you have enough of an engineering understanding to have done a fourier series approximation to an arbitrary line. You start with a sine wave and you tweak here and boink there mathematically to get as close as you need to the shape of any line broken or continuous or otherwise. In a sense if you have an empirical observation of the sky, you can adjust here or there the epicircles of a geocentric or adjust the size of the elliptical shape of an heliocentric to get the values right. But what distinguishes Newton's derived Kepler's laws and more correctly still (compared to the emperical determination)Einstein's GR theory, is that the qualities of mass and distance balanced with inertial momentum produced these very exact shapes and descriptions without looking at the answers to tweak the results. Without adding additional found mass or new bodies these answers will get no better.

There is no like analogue for geocentricism. There is nothing but the empirical movement of the planets and sun itself to inform the number and relative size of circles and epicircle or even if we grant the modern understanding of ellipses for geocentric determination. It is much like adjusting the sine wave to imitate the result. So well that it is equally correct to the empirical findings. I actually admit Newton's Derivation is not as good but it never looked to adjusting just the shape to get answers correct. They naturally arise from Newton's Three laws of Motion. And as such provide a Naturalistic explanation. If you wish only to settle for the correct answer, then you win. But you lose the understanding.

I said back at the beginning of this thread that the math is easier with a heliocentric model.

Let's assume for the moment that the Earth really is fixed in space (by some unknown natural phenomenon) with all effects of mass otherwise remaining the same. Would the orbits of the stars, our sun, the planets, their moons, and every other celestial body be any different than it is now? The answer is that they would not. Venus would still be a satellite of the Sun with a relatively circular orbit, Haley's comet would still be a satellite of the Sun with a highly eliptical orbit. The black hole that is theorized at the midpoint of the Milky Way would orbit around the Earth and most of the rest of the galactic material would orbit that black hole. Nothing would be different if the Earth were undeniably the center of it all.

patteeu

04-23-2008, 09:36 AM

What separates Man from Apes? One concept that does is the notion of mass. Here is the experiment. Enclosed in a clear cage is an apple. There is a track that can deliver a sphere to hit the apple and if the mass is large enough displaced the apple that is then accessible. If you present a Chimp with two spheres of the same size but different mass (weight), the Chimp will try 50% of the time to use the sphere with insufficient mass to displace the apple. However if you put a 5 year old child in the same experiment the results are that the child will almost always chose the heavier sphere.

In the course of Human Evolution, it became a selective vector, to be able to distinguish the value of mass (weight). Either from throwing spears or shooting arrows or choosing the right rock or bone to swing and use as a tool. But the result was that we gain insight into physics that other apes do not possess.

To then turn to the studies of the heavens and refuse to include our intuition about mass and Nature's physics is to reduce our possible understanding of the Heavens to that of just aping what we see.

The geocentrism that I'm talking about doesn't deny the impact of mass, it just doesn't exalt mass as the most important characteristic of all. Geocentrism isn't very appealling to me, partly (I'm sure) because I was educated to think in terms of heliocentrism and partly because it is intuitively more satisfying. But I don't think my reasons for preferring heliocentrism are inherently better someone else who chooses geocentrism because of the incredible uniqueness (so far) of Earth as the only known home of intelligent life, indeed life of any kind, in the universe.

tiptap

04-23-2008, 01:47 PM

It's clear that Einstein thought that it was easier to understand the solar system as heliocentric, but that's not the same thing as saying that Sungenis is wrong (about Einstein) nor is it the same thing as saying that a geocentric model is wrong.

Sungenis says Einstein holds Ptolemy's cosmology, not Frame of Reference, but cosmology, as valid as Copernicus. And Einstein explicitly states that Copernicus model is BEST for the solar system. Not bettor or bettor in some areas but best. I am not the English major but a far as a comparative go this is as definite as one can be for the solar system. Then he goes on to show how Kepler produced the shape of EARTH's orbit. He didn't say the suns orbit. And he clearly wasn't shy of breaking with convention about things.

If Sungenis and you wish to include the whole universe and claim the center is arbitrary so I could choose the earth than you are almost right. Because I need to know where on Earth or in the earth is that center. If that center is arbitrary then he simple represents some point located on a Euclidean Grid that just happens to be where the earth is presently. But if you are empowering earth in some capacity to be designated as center you have introduced an exterior characteristic. Meanwhile you have already admitted the math is easier, it is a more consistent approach and includes physical characteristics to hold to a mass generated derived Copernican system.

tiptap

04-23-2008, 01:54 PM

The geocentrism that I'm talking about doesn't deny the impact of mass, it just doesn't exalt mass as the most important characteristic of all. Geocentrism isn't very appealling to me, partly (I'm sure) because I was educated to think in terms of heliocentrism and partly because it is intuitively more satisfying. But I don't think my reasons for preferring heliocentrism are inherently better someone else who chooses geocentrism because of the incredible uniqueness (so far) of Earth as the only known home of intelligent life, indeed life of any kind, in the universe.

You scold me for using GR (and I apologise. I happen to be working through a couple of texts on GR) but then you want to accuse me of exalting MASS. It is not the only invariant. One that is easily assessable as well is the speed of light. But most of the other invariants tend to be tensors, which like vectors, or cubes or such are geometric entities. Not all math tensors can be physic tensors because of being real objects. So I can't list them and their involvement easily. Mass is the easiest to work with.

So if life is the reason for choosing earth, does this mean every world with satellites also has life? If not then for matters of Cosmology which is primary in laying out worlds?

patteeu

04-23-2008, 02:16 PM

Sungenis says Einstein holds Ptolemy's cosmology, not Frame of Reference, but cosmology, as valid as Copernicus. And Einstein explicitly states that Copernicus model is BEST for the solar system. Not bettor or bettor in some areas but best. I am not the English major but a far as a comparative go this is as definite as one can be for the solar system. Then he goes on to show how Kepler produced the shape of EARTH's orbit. He didn't say the suns orbit. And he clearly wasn't shy of breaking with convention about things.

If Sungenis and you wish to include the whole universe and claim the center is arbitrary so I could choose the earth than you are almost right. Because I need to know where on Earth or in the earth is that center. If that center is arbitrary then he simple represents some point located on a Euclidean Grid that just happens to be where the earth is presently. But if you are empowering earth in some capacity to be designated as center you have introduced an exterior characteristic. Meanwhile you have already admitted the math is easier, it is a more consistent approach and includes physical characteristics to hold to a mass generated derived Copernican system.

Where does he make such a distinction? And don't try to tell me that the word "cosmology" implies in any way that he's not talking about frame of reference.

Choosing the Earth as the center is no different in terms of introducing an exterior characteristic than choosing the sun. It's just not a case of introducing the primacy of mass.

patteeu

04-23-2008, 02:24 PM

You scold me for using GR (and I apologise. I happen to be working through a couple of texts on GR) but then you want to accuse me of exalting MASS. It is not the only invariant. One that is easily assessable as well is the speed of light. But most of the other invariants tend to be tensors, which like vectors, or cubes or such are geometric entities. Not all math tensors can be physic tensors because of being real objects. So I can't list them and their involvement easily. Mass is the easiest to work with.

Forgive me and accept my apology for having to (over)simplify the things you've been saying as an exaltation of mass. It's just a byproduct of the fact that I don't completely understand the relativistic concepts you've been posting. However, I think I've deciphered enough of it to remain confident that you haven't invalidated my position.

So if life is the reason for choosing earth, does this mean every world with satellites also has life? If not then for matters of Cosmology which is primary in laying out worlds?

No, it means that the Earth is the only place we've found life. It also means that if we find life on other planets, the rationale for choosing the Earth as center is undermined. I suppose that if the only life we find is some kind of microorganism or plantlife, some might continue to view the universe as Earth-centered on the basis of Earth being the only known home of intelligent life.

tiptap

04-23-2008, 03:14 PM

Where does he make such a distinction? And don't try to tell me that the word "cosmology" implies in any way that he's not talking about frame of reference.

Choosing the Earth as the center is no different in terms of introducing an exterior characteristic than choosing the sun. It's just not a case of introducing the primacy of mass.

If he was choosing to use Cosmology as simply the equivalent of Frame of Reference than he would have never answered the question in the affirmative that the "sun goes around the earth." He would have more correctly parse his words from the start to state that was one of a large number of equally efficacious models that can be used to correctly calculate relative position in the sky on earth. For this is, as for you, the starting point. It is meant to provide the notion that the models are all equal. It is only the particular calculations that are equal. The calculations are the algebra, the model is the geometry.

tiptap

04-23-2008, 03:24 PM

I state this because once there is intelligent life on Mars and they in turn look at earth and see phases that include a full earth and note that the transits of the earth are only in one direction, they will conclude that they are the center and the earth goes around the sun geometrically speaking.

irishjayhawk

04-23-2008, 04:27 PM

Ummm, no. Aside from the fact the scale of the planets in the photo is irrelevant, your suggestion the others are even close is very far from the truth.

I'd say if you shrunk the earth and moon down to respective size, those would fit pretty well. There's no other planets to compare with in your graphic.

In any case, we're arguing the same thing, the representation is wrong. And in my opinion it wasn't accidental.

Adept Havelock

04-23-2008, 04:45 PM

I'd say if you shrunk the earth and moon down to respective size, those would fit pretty well.
:spock:

You seem to share an inability with a very few other regular DC posters to admit you're wrong on anything. I wonder where that comes from? Even in college, I didn't assume I knew everything. If I made a point and it was refuted, I was (and still am) gracious enough to admit it. :shake:

You claimed:

Your purdy photo fails anyway because look at the size of Earth compared with everything else. Everything else is basically to scale.

His map shows Venus and the Moon as roughly the same size, and both roughly 1/10 the size of the sun. That's the claim you made which is incorrect, which I called attention to.

There's no other planets to compare with in your graphic.

:spock:

Both graphics show Mars, Venus, and the Sun as points of comparison. Mine were drawn to scale, according the folks at NASA where I got the graphic. This claim is also nonsense.

In any case, we're arguing the same thing, the representation is wrong. And in my opinion it wasn't accidental
The question of scale of the planets in his picture really didn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. Let's leave aside the fact your observation was incorrect (in that none of the others are really to scale, as you claimed). If you wanted to contribute, is keeping the criticism relevant to the topic under discussion (geocentrism vs. heliocentrism) too much to ask?

If you wonder why I really don't take you seriously, posts like this have a great deal to do with it.

If you don't wonder... :rockon: :drool: :shrug:

irishjayhawk

04-23-2008, 05:28 PM

:spock:

You seem to share an inability with a very few other regular DC posters to admit you're wrong on anything. I wonder where that comes from? Even in college, I didn't assume I knew everything. If I made a point and it was refuted, I was (and still am) gracious enough to admit it. :shake:

You claimed:

His map shows Venus and the Moon as roughly the same size, and both roughly 1/10 the size of the sun. That's the claim you made which is incorrect, which I called attention to.

:spock:

Both graphics show Mars, Venus, and the Sun as points of comparison. Mine were drawn to scale, according the folks at NASA where I got the graphic. This claim is also nonsense.

The question of scale of the planets in his picture really didn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. Let's leave aside the fact your observation was incorrect (in that none of the others are really to scale, as you claimed). If you wanted to contribute, is keeping the criticism relevant to the topic under discussion (geocentrism vs. heliocentrism) too much to ask?

If you wonder why I really don't take you seriously, posts like this have a great deal to do with it.

If you don't wonder... :rockon: :drool: :shrug:

I'm still confused as to what you just analyzed because I said if you shrunk Earth and moon down to the size they should be, all the other planets (venus and mars look to be pretty representational). But I guess I'm just unsure.

I looked at your graphic:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=77824&stc=1&d=1208905320

And re-compared his. And I thought in my eyes, that if you shrunk the earth and moon down to where they should actually be, everything else still looks somewhat representational. But I digress. Sorry to have bothered you. And, for the record, I do admit when I'm wrong.

Adept Havelock

04-23-2008, 05:35 PM

I'm still confused as to what you just analyzed because I said if you shrunk Earth and moon down to the size they should be, all the other planets (venus and mars look to be pretty representational). But I guess I'm just unsure.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I was addressing your comparison of scale of Venus and Mars to the size of the Sun in his graphic.
Your purdy photo fails anyway because look at the size of Earth compared with everything else. Everything else is basically to scale.His graphic, which you stated "was basically correct" puts Venus and Mars both about 1/10 to 1/20 the size of the Sun, and that's not even remotely close. Also, your original statement didn't limit your claim to planets, nor mention the moon, as you stated in your later posts. That's called "moving the goalposts", and tha's usually frowned upon as it makes discussion very difficult. However, I don't think it's done maliciously.

But I digress. Sorry to have bothered you.
No bother at all, really. I'm just a bit crotchety. ;)

And, for the record, I do admit when I'm wrong.
Apparently, not in this instance. :p

irishjayhawk

04-23-2008, 05:39 PM

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I was addressing your comparison of scale of Venus and Mars to the size of the Sun in his graphic. His graphic, which you stated "was basically correct" puts Venus and Mars both about 1/10 to 1/20 the size of the Sun, and that's not even remotely close. That's all.

No bother at all, really. I'm just a bit crotchety. ;)

Apparently, not in this instance. :p

Now I see what you are saying. Thank you.

I will genuinely admit that I have no idea how big the sun is but to be fair your graphic doesn't necessarily give much scale in that respect. But I merely took it as Mars was smaller than Venus. And Earth would, if correct, would be almost the same size as Venus and the moon would be even smaller.

Having said that, the graphic still doesn't take into account mercury, which I guess was too small to acknowledge in it's orbit around the Earth. ;)

And in my defense, I think calling out his diagram is relevant to the discussion for the sole fact that it's been produce by those thinking in this geocentric debate. And I still don't think it's a coincidence that the Earth and Moon are enlarged the way they are on the graphic he posted.

Having said that, let me bow out of this uber-intellectual debate in which I know I don't have much knowledge in. Frankly, tiptap's posts seem to go in one ear and out the other without much processing.

Adept Havelock

04-23-2008, 06:31 PM

Frankly, tiptap's posts seem to go in one ear and out the other without much processing.

FWIW, I've been a Science buff with a (IMO) fairly decent knowledge for a layman, but I have a hell of a time keeping up too. Like I told him, I like the posts, but some of it does make my brain hurt trying to keep up. I figure it can use the exercise.

patteeu

04-24-2008, 09:43 AM

If he was choosing to use Cosmology as simply the equivalent of Frame of Reference than he would have never answered the question in the affirmative that the "sun goes around the earth." He would have more correctly parse his words from the start to state that was one of a large number of equally efficacious models that can be used to correctly calculate relative position in the sky on earth. For this is, as for you, the starting point. It is meant to provide the notion that the models are all equal. It is only the particular calculations that are equal. The calculations are the algebra, the model is the geometry.

Because of the statement made about Einstein et al, Occam's Razor suggests that he's using geocentric in the same sense that I've been using it, IMO.

To believe he's talking about a form of geocentrism that is extreme and anti-scientific, you have to believe that he's just wildly lying about Einstein and crew which makes no sense. It makes far more sense to conclude that he's actually talking about a concept that can be reconciled with the people he cites. I see this as somewhat similar to the way the Pope reconciles the church's view on creationism with scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution. In the latter case, the view is that God created everything including the process of evolution. In the former case, the view is that the Earth is the center but there are a lot of other bodies out there that, relatively speaking, orbit each other even as they collectively revolve around the earth.

patteeu

04-24-2008, 09:46 AM

I state this because once there is intelligent life on Mars and they in turn look at earth and see phases that include a full earth and note that the transits of the earth are only in one direction, they will conclude that they are the center and the earth goes around the sun geometrically speaking.

I don't know who "they" is, but there would be no reason for someone who chooses to see the universe/solar system as earth-centered to change their opinion as a result of observations from Mars.

patteeu

04-24-2008, 09:52 AM

FWIW, I've been a Science buff with a (IMO) fairly decent knowledge for a layman, but I have a hell of a time keeping up too. Like I told him, I like the posts, but some of it does make my brain hurt trying to keep up. I figure it can use the exercise.

Same. It took me forever to figure out that we were talking about two different concepts and even then I obviously didn't understand everything he was saying. But I have to assume that my own explanations were less than adequate since he didn't notice that we were talking about two different things (and since neither you nor Irish seem to understand what I'm saying either). :(

Adept Havelock

04-24-2008, 10:02 AM

Same. It took me forever to figure out that we were talking about two different concepts and even then I obviously didn't understand everything he was saying. But I have to assume that my own explanations were less than adequate since he didn't notice that we were talking about two different things (and since neither you nor Irish seem to understand what I'm saying either). :(

IMO, you're still not really addressing Mr. Sungenis's claim, as his position and body of work does not claim equality of the "frames of reference" as you've stated, it claims Geocentrism is the superior one.

http://www.catholicintl.com/products/books/gwwprint.htm

Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Garnering scientific information from physics, astrophysics, astronomy and other sciences, Galileo Was Wrong shows that the debate between Galileo and the Catholic Church was much more than a difference of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture.

Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.

Because of the statement made about Einstein et al, Occam's Razor suggests that he's using geocentric in the same sense that I've been using it, IMO.

If you only consider his statement in that article, I suppose you could come to that conclusion. If you consider his books and claims of the superiority of Geocentrism, I come to a different conclusion. I think he purposefully left his claims of "geocentric superiority" out of the BBC interview because he knows most people would laugh or shake their heads, and move on.

JMO. :shrug:

irishjayhawk

04-24-2008, 10:23 AM

Same. It took me forever to figure out that we were talking about two different concepts and even then I obviously didn't understand everything he was saying. But I have to assume that my own explanations were less than adequate since he didn't notice that we were talking about two different things (and since neither you nor Irish seem to understand what I'm saying either). :(

Correct me if I'm wrong but your entire premise is that if I'm on the Earth, everything seems to revolve around it. If I'm on the sun, everything revolves around it. Therefore both are correct or incorrect by the same measure.

However, then you lost me when you decided to say that if you were an objective viewer of the solar system one system wouldn't be correct - both would be accurate.

patteeu

04-24-2008, 11:54 AM

IMO, you're still not really addressing Mr. Sungenis's claim, as his position and body of work does not claim equality of the "frames of reference" as you've stated, it claims Geocentrism is the superior one.

http://www.catholicintl.com/products/books/gwwprint.htm

Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Garnering scientific information from physics, astrophysics, astronomy and other sciences, Galileo Was Wrong shows that the debate between Galileo and the Catholic Church was much more than a difference of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture.

Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.

If you only consider his statement in that article, I suppose you could come to that conclusion. If you consider his books and claims of the superiority of Geocentrism, I come to a different conclusion. I think he purposefully left his claims of "geocentric superiority" out of the BBC interview because he knows most people would laugh or shake their heads, and move on.

JMO. :shrug:

I'm addressing what was in the OP article. I don't know anything else about Sungenis. I can only address what he says here, which is unobjectionable.

If the point is to try to shoot holes in Sungenis' support for geocentrism, you can't do it on the basis of what is included in the OP. When I started defending "geocentrism", I was defending the view expressed in the OP, not some other view expressed in some other forum. If it's true that Sungenis is lying about what he believes in this article, that's a completely different issue. It does not in any way invalidate the concept of geocentrism as expressed in the OP article.

BTW, have you actually read Galileo Was Wrong?

Oh, and once again, "best" is a matter of opinion. The issue I'm defending is the validity of the view of "geocentrism" expressed in the OP.

Adept Havelock

04-24-2008, 12:09 PM

BTW, have you actually read Galileo Was Wrong?

No, I don't waste money on books that (IMO) are pseudo-science as it's not available from my Library. A little time spent with Google and other search engines will show that GWW is a defense of his claim of the superiority of Tychonian Geocentrism (and Fundamentalist Catholic Dogma supporting Geocentrism, in Vol. 2), and that it claims that Geo is a more accurate representation of reality than Helio. At least, according to the people publishing, selling, and reviewing/commenting on it in the geocentrist-supporting internet forums I dug up.

I do think a publisher might exaggerate his personal response to a book to sell more copies. That said, in my experience people selling (Science and Pseudo-Science) books tend to accurately reflect the content in their reviews and summaries, so that people interested in those topics are aware of that content. I doubt a Publisher or Seller that misrepresents the content of a (Scientific/Pseudo-Scientific) work will sell many copies of anything in the future, and they are aware of that.

If the point is to try to shoot holes in Sungenis' support for geocentrism, you can't do it on the basis of what is included in the OP.

Heh. I don't see how I am trying to "shoot holes" in his support for Geocentrism. Not when I'm saying that he is a staunch supporter of it, and proclaims it's superiority in GWW (according to those publishing and selling the book).

However, I personally doubt that he actually believes Helio/Geo are co-equal when he's written two volumes and put forth a great deal of effort to show that Tychonian Geocentrism isn't just equally correct to Heliocentrism, but rather superior to it.

That is why I believe he is being disingenuous in his ambiguity in the OP. As I said before, IMO he is aware that if he makes the same claims on the BBC that he makes in GWW (again, according to the Publisher and other sellers), the majority of people will chuckle to themselves and dismiss him.

As I have no reason to believe the Publisher and Sellers are misrepresenting GWW's content...:shrug:

JMO.

As you wish to limit your discussion to the OP instead of digging for more information about Sungenis's body of work that might shed more light on his position and beliefs, that's OK.

As I've said before I'm happy to agree to disagree, and have enjoyed the conversation.

patteeu

04-24-2008, 01:31 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but your entire premise is that if I'm on the Earth, everything seems to revolve around it. If I'm on the sun, everything revolves around it. Therefore both are correct or incorrect by the same measure.

However, then you lost me when you decided to say that if you were an objective viewer of the solar system one system wouldn't be correct - both would be accurate.

My premise is that it has nothing to do with where you are standing. My premise is that the choice of a center is arbitrary (or maybe more precisely, the choice of criteria that you use to define a center is arbitrary).

You don't have to be standing in the middle of a roulette wheel to look at a it and recognize a center (based on the frame of reference that says the table is stationary). But you can see both the table and the little marble as rotating around the earth as the earth rotates through it's night/day cycles. And you can similarly choose to look at it as if the roulette wheel, the little marble, and the earth all revolve around the sun. You can choose to look at any of these points as the center (i.e. center of the wheel, the earth, or the sun) even though you are just standing next to the table placing bets.

patteeu

04-24-2008, 01:32 PM

No, I don't waste money on books that (IMO) are pseudo-science as it's not available from my Library. A little time spent with Google and other search engines will show that GWW is a defense of his claim of the superiority of Tychonian Geocentrism (and Fundamentalist Catholic Dogma supporting Geocentrism, in Vol. 2), and that it claims that Geo is a more accurate representation of reality than Helio. At least, according to the people publishing, selling, and reviewing/commenting on it in the geocentrist-supporting internet forums I dug up.

I do think a publisher might exaggerate his personal response to a book to sell more copies. That said, in my experience people selling (Science and Pseudo-Science) books tend to accurately reflect the content in their reviews and summaries, so that people interested in those topics are aware of that content. I doubt a Publisher or Seller that misrepresents the content of a (Scientific/Pseudo-Scientific) work will sell many copies of anything in the future, and they are aware of that.

Heh. I don't see how I am trying to "shoot holes" in his support for Geocentrism. Not when I'm saying that he is a staunch supporter of it, and proclaims it's superiority in GWW (according to those publishing and selling the book).

However, I personally doubt that he actually believes Helio/Geo are co-equal when he's written two volumes and put forth a great deal of effort to show that Tychonian Geocentrism isn't just equally correct to Heliocentrism, but rather superior to it.

That is why I believe he is being disingenuous in his ambiguity in the OP. As I said before, IMO he is aware that if he makes the same claims on the BBC that he makes in GWW (again, according to the Publisher and other sellers), the majority of people will chuckle to themselves and dismiss him.

As I have no reason to believe the Publisher and Sellers are misrepresenting GWW's content...:shrug:

JMO.

As you wish to limit your discussion to the OP instead of digging for more information about Sungenis's body of work that might shed more light on his position and beliefs, that's OK.

As I've said before I'm happy to agree to disagree, and have enjoyed the conversation.

:toast:

tiptap

04-24-2008, 04:37 PM

Center, this concept is only possible if you have a frame that allows for there to be a center. Take the surface of the earth. Where is the center of the surface of the earth. There isn't a location that is the center. Now you can choose to designate a place as the reference location like Greenwich and the equator or one of the poles. (If the world isn't spinning than there is no pole of spin) But that is not the center in any meaning. In an infinite Cartesian plane or volume, the center is just as meaningless as an adjective. You can choose anyplace as the reference point but it is just as arbitrary. It is no more a center than 0 longitude and 0 latitude is the center of the surface of the earth.

patteeu talks about the bias of his instruction to a heliocentric idea. Yet he neglects to bias in the teaching of geometry based upon Cartesian x,y and z format. Vector descriptions of relationships between parts of a sphere or a cone or such do not have to reference Cartesian format. And Cartesian algebra, that is what we have been taught to calculate, has insisted upon non interacting lines TO INFINITY. There is no need to go beyond the known geometric entities to insist upon that kind of infinity. This is as difficult an idea to get over as any. Einstein took from 1905 to 1915 trying to understand this. Even with Riemann providing much of the mathematical machinery. To think of this as simply a choice of center is a failure to understand how that question is meaningless unless your choice of frame already implicitly has introduced center as possible. The arbitrariness extends to having to include non center possibilities like the surface of a sphere but in 3 or 4 dimensions as well. All of them are represented not one to the exclusion. And so none can be totally correct, that is the frames. There are things that are invariant but they do not include time or space. The evidence is Lorentz transformations needed to describe things things moving from one frame of velocity to another at least very fast things.

patteeu

04-25-2008, 08:12 AM

Center, this concept is only possible if you have a frame that allows for there to be a center. Take the surface of the earth. Where is the center of the surface of the earth. There isn't a location that is the center. Now you can choose to designate a place as the reference location like Greenwich and the equator or one of the poles. (If the world isn't spinning than there is no pole of spin) But that is not the center in any meaning. In an infinite Cartesian plane or volume, the center is just as meaningless as an adjective. You can choose anyplace as the reference point but it is just as arbitrary. It is no more a center than 0 longitude and 0 latitude is the center of the surface of the earth.

That's what I've been saying since the beginning of this thread. I said it most recently in my last post.

patteeu talks about the bias of his instruction to a heliocentric idea. Yet he neglects to bias in the teaching of geometry based upon Cartesian x,y and z format. Vector descriptions of relationships between parts of a sphere or a cone or such do not have to reference Cartesian format. And Cartesian algebra, that is what we have been taught to calculate, has insisted upon non interacting lines TO INFINITY. There is no need to go beyond the known geometric entities to insist upon that kind of infinity. This is as difficult an idea to get over as any. Einstein took from 1905 to 1915 trying to understand this. Even with Riemann providing much of the mathematical machinery. To think of this as simply a choice of center is a failure to understand how that question is meaningless unless your choice of frame already implicitly has introduced center as possible. The arbitrariness extends to having to include non center possibilities like the surface of a sphere but in 3 or 4 dimensions as well. All of them are represented not one to the exclusion. And so none can be totally correct, that is the frames. There are things that are invariant but they do not include time or space. The evidence is Lorentz transformations needed to describe things things moving from one frame of velocity to another at least very fast things.

I admit that I'm biased by that which I understand. And maybe it's just that my ability to understand advanced scientific concepts is lacking, but whatever it is, you've failed to give me any reason to think that advanced scientific concepts make the choice of criteria on which to base "center" any less arbitrary.

tiptap

04-25-2008, 08:43 AM

But where this reasoning mismatches with reality is that you extend your frame of reference universally, your arbitray choice of "center" through the universe. What I am saying is that the universe displays situations where all the references are needed including those where the term central is totally meaningless or entirely different. My universe can not be housed in one reference ever. The reference is not universally valid. None can be.

So what I am left with is the attempt to prove that there is no universal frame. It would seem that this would make understanding impossible. But you can step into the process by stating locally, as small as you need, that Euclidean space characteristics, bounded yes, exist. It is like getting on the escalator. Initially it is flat then suddenly it is going up. Or you get on the roller coaster on a flat landing but you don't stay there. The mechanics of Differential Geometry lets you follow how deviant from the Euclidean space you are going. The transition can even be collapsed for say Black Holes, geometric cusps or a crash on the roller coaster. And so I am slave in part to Euclidean notions as well. And it is hard to get off. Because we relate the changes in matter's action (or even light), the things we are observing and interacting with, from their Non Euclidean movement to our local Euclidean observation.

tiptap

04-29-2008, 10:07 AM

So how does one prove that Euclidean space doesn't exist universally? The classic experiment for scientist is the bending of light by gravitational fields. Yet to say that doesn't really convey the idea that space has warped, only that the path of light has been warped. The Euclidean space remains as a measure of the deviation of the lights path.

The precession of Mercury also doesn't quite work for laypeople because the implication of the deviation is seen against the accepted Newtonian derived Kepler derivation. It doesn't really provide the observational note that most of us would accept as proving Euclidean space cannot be supported.

But I live in an age of satellites and here is the direct evidence. In order to have space itself be Euclidean, Pythagorean measurements for DISTANCE have to be true for situations. a^2 + b^2 = c^2. This is exactly what the US Military thought would be true when they first launched the GPS system. But a great number of people working on the system told the Military that Lorentz calculations would be needed. This is because the speeds of the satellites were fast enough and precisions had to be correct enough to place someone on earth at a particular location. If your GPS works fine with Euclidean determinations of both timing and distance than there would be no proof of the Lorentz forshortening. It took less than a week in getting the GPS system going for everyone to realize that Einstein was right.

For a while there the Military tried to say they could alter the signal in order to put other countries off so they couldn't use the GPS. What that really was about was the use of Lorentz calculations.

So everyday millions of experiments and billions of dollars of investment are tied to the observation that we do not live in a Euclidean space and that while the calculations immediate to us start in the Euclidean delineated space they cannot be extended universally and be correct.